Sirs,
The headline on Lysiane Gagnon's column on the French elections (Dec 16,
2015) claims "a victory for moderation".
However, had the French used our electoral system, we'd now all be
talking about the French extreme right winning a massive victory, taking
advantage of their "win" to press forward with their xenophobic,
anti-European-values platform.
But they don't share our ridiculous system, so instead the majority
wins, and the French deliver a firm rejection of this party and those
values.
Surely this implies some useful advice to Canadian voters!
Sincerely,
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Friday, December 4, 2015
Food Bank Day
Dear NDP,
Here's a copy of my Facebook post of December 4, 2015:
I think it's obscene that there are 97 food banks that serve over 100,000 people per month in BC.
Where's our sense of collective responsibility? Why are we not overcome by guilt at these statistics? How on Earth is it we have allowed our provincial government to become so irresponsible?
I know that making an annual donation on "Food Bank Day" doesn't do anything to solve the underlying problems.
And yes, I'm aware the NDP didn't do enough to solve this situation last time they formed government, but the statistics show the problem has grown exponentially since then.
So my "Food Bank" donation is going to the NDP, along with an exhortation to deal with this intolerable situation ASAP.
With a copy of the letter to Christy.
Sincerely,
W Justus Havelaar
cc: Premier@gov.bc.ca
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
Walking the Pumpkin
When the Pumpkin comes for his annual winter visit, we go walking. Every day, usually in the afternoon (because it's too dark early in the morning when our friends Roger and Kona walk) and always for at least an hour never mind the weather.
That's pretty much essential for his health and well-being, but it doesn't hurt me a bit either, and I like the fact that while the schedule is intense while it lasts, there's always an end.
Usually just before the ski-season starts!
We almost always walk on the network of informal trails and old logging roads behind the airport, the area on and around the Erickson Main between the Jubilee Parkway and the Duncan Bay Main. It's not the most scenic country around, in that it's pretty-much all been logged – a lot of it very recently and much of it not very sensitively – but it's close, and walking there allows dogs to go off-leash without much chance that they'll meet overly-sensitive walkers or bike-riders, or overly-protective dog owners.
You will meet dirt bikes and quads, however, as well as the occasional 4X4. And, of course, other dogs, often delightful but occasionally not very well-trained and, very occasionally, aggressive.
You walk your dog; you take your chances.
One of the thing's we've spotted quite regularly this winter is a pickup truck, accompanied by two dogs, off-leash. The driver of the truck appears to be a young guy, and happily the dogs respond instantly to his voice, because the first time we met they started to give Pumpkin a hard time before he called them off.
But here's the thing: in order to get your truck onto the Erickson Main you have to go through the ditch, over the dike built especially to keep you out, around the gate and the sign that informs you you're trespassing if you don't have express permission to be there, then along the quad trail to the Main, which is just an unmaintained, disused logging road. Once is probably all the thrill you're going to get.
So it's clearly not about the driving; it's about the exercise the dogs get.
And if you're smart enough to know that exercise is good for your dogs, why aren't you smart enough to know it would probably be good for you too?
This year so far we haven't seen the resident bear, although we've seen his tracks a few times. We have seen (much to Pumpkin's ineffectual delight) numbers of rabbits, several grouse, a few deer, and a herd of elk.
I've found a driver's license, a bank debit card, and $2.10 in coins, all at different times on different trails.
I've also taken a number of photos which please me.
Still 18 days left in which to see that bear!
That's pretty much essential for his health and well-being, but it doesn't hurt me a bit either, and I like the fact that while the schedule is intense while it lasts, there's always an end.
Usually just before the ski-season starts!
We almost always walk on the network of informal trails and old logging roads behind the airport, the area on and around the Erickson Main between the Jubilee Parkway and the Duncan Bay Main. It's not the most scenic country around, in that it's pretty-much all been logged – a lot of it very recently and much of it not very sensitively – but it's close, and walking there allows dogs to go off-leash without much chance that they'll meet overly-sensitive walkers or bike-riders, or overly-protective dog owners.
You will meet dirt bikes and quads, however, as well as the occasional 4X4. And, of course, other dogs, often delightful but occasionally not very well-trained and, very occasionally, aggressive.
You walk your dog; you take your chances.
 |
| Erickson Main |
One of the thing's we've spotted quite regularly this winter is a pickup truck, accompanied by two dogs, off-leash. The driver of the truck appears to be a young guy, and happily the dogs respond instantly to his voice, because the first time we met they started to give Pumpkin a hard time before he called them off.
But here's the thing: in order to get your truck onto the Erickson Main you have to go through the ditch, over the dike built especially to keep you out, around the gate and the sign that informs you you're trespassing if you don't have express permission to be there, then along the quad trail to the Main, which is just an unmaintained, disused logging road. Once is probably all the thrill you're going to get.
So it's clearly not about the driving; it's about the exercise the dogs get.
And if you're smart enough to know that exercise is good for your dogs, why aren't you smart enough to know it would probably be good for you too?
This year so far we haven't seen the resident bear, although we've seen his tracks a few times. We have seen (much to Pumpkin's ineffectual delight) numbers of rabbits, several grouse, a few deer, and a herd of elk.
 |
| Pumpkin sees elk across the clearcut |
I've found a driver's license, a bank debit card, and $2.10 in coins, all at different times on different trails.
I've also taken a number of photos which please me.
Still 18 days left in which to see that bear!
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Chonda
I believe I've done this often enough now to say there's a theme developing in this blog: Justus' encounters with technology. This one's a little off the beaten path of my experience:
A few years ago the original 5 horse Briggs and Stratton engine on our very skookum chipper/shredder died. This was replaced by an outfit in Comox with a "Chonda", a Chinese copy of a 5.5HP Honda engine. It was significantly less expensive than the Honda equivalent, and the repair person said they'd had good luck with the ones they had installed to that point.
Of course he would say that; but in truth, it worked like a charm.
This year, after the rains had arrived and I felt it safe to start on my chipping pile, I hauled the chipper out. As usual, it started enthusiastically. It ran for about 15 minutes, then quit. I started it again: 30 seconds, then quit. Several times.
Thinking it was a fuel-supply problem, I unbolted the engine from the chipper, put the engine in the van, and drove to my local small-engine repair person. He thought maybe it was a fuel issue as well, and agreed to give it a tune-up.
When I got it back, it ran like a top for about 30 minutes, then quit. Again, it started, but wouldn't continue running.
So I put the chipper in the van and drove to Comox to see the repair person who had initially installed it.
The company had changed owners and they no longer dealt with this kind of engine, but their repair person would have a look at it.
Next day he phoned: the engine was a Chonda, and because it was a Chonda, it couldn't be repaired: they couldn't get parts. A replacement Honda engine, he estimated, would cost about $1000, but he wasn't enthusiastic about the job, probably because it would be a special order, and they no longer do this kind of repair.
Reasoning that if an engine replacement was necessary, I didn't need to have it done in Comox, I drove back to the shop, thanked them for their advice, placed the chipper in the van, and returned home. Then I went to see my local small-engine guy. Yes, they could supply a Honda, and for only a little more than half the quoted price.
There are two 5.5HP models; one is $40 more than the other. And what's the difference?
Well, the more expensive one has a feature that stops the engine when the oil level gets too low.
...Wait a minute! That has to be the explanation! It exactly describes what was going on, and I'd noticed an oil leak. If that's the explanation, any chance it could be repaired?
Well, sometimes Honda parts work…
I went home, loaded the chipper into the van, and took it down to see him.
Several days later he phoned: he'd compared the crankcase on mine with a stripped-down Honda he was working on. They were identical, so a Honda gasket would probably do the trick.
“Go for it!” I said.
Today I picked it up. It runs like a top, and there's no sign of leaking oil.
A few years ago the original 5 horse Briggs and Stratton engine on our very skookum chipper/shredder died. This was replaced by an outfit in Comox with a "Chonda", a Chinese copy of a 5.5HP Honda engine. It was significantly less expensive than the Honda equivalent, and the repair person said they'd had good luck with the ones they had installed to that point.
Of course he would say that; but in truth, it worked like a charm.
This year, after the rains had arrived and I felt it safe to start on my chipping pile, I hauled the chipper out. As usual, it started enthusiastically. It ran for about 15 minutes, then quit. I started it again: 30 seconds, then quit. Several times.
Thinking it was a fuel-supply problem, I unbolted the engine from the chipper, put the engine in the van, and drove to my local small-engine repair person. He thought maybe it was a fuel issue as well, and agreed to give it a tune-up.
When I got it back, it ran like a top for about 30 minutes, then quit. Again, it started, but wouldn't continue running.
So I put the chipper in the van and drove to Comox to see the repair person who had initially installed it.
The company had changed owners and they no longer dealt with this kind of engine, but their repair person would have a look at it.
Next day he phoned: the engine was a Chonda, and because it was a Chonda, it couldn't be repaired: they couldn't get parts. A replacement Honda engine, he estimated, would cost about $1000, but he wasn't enthusiastic about the job, probably because it would be a special order, and they no longer do this kind of repair.
Reasoning that if an engine replacement was necessary, I didn't need to have it done in Comox, I drove back to the shop, thanked them for their advice, placed the chipper in the van, and returned home. Then I went to see my local small-engine guy. Yes, they could supply a Honda, and for only a little more than half the quoted price.
There are two 5.5HP models; one is $40 more than the other. And what's the difference?
Well, the more expensive one has a feature that stops the engine when the oil level gets too low.
...Wait a minute! That has to be the explanation! It exactly describes what was going on, and I'd noticed an oil leak. If that's the explanation, any chance it could be repaired?
Well, sometimes Honda parts work…
I went home, loaded the chipper into the van, and took it down to see him.
Several days later he phoned: he'd compared the crankcase on mine with a stripped-down Honda he was working on. They were identical, so a Honda gasket would probably do the trick.
“Go for it!” I said.
Today I picked it up. It runs like a top, and there's no sign of leaking oil.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Snowman, the film
Those of you who number yourselves among the few occasional readers of this occasional blog may remember a post from December 2012, in which I talked about being visited by two former students, Mike Douglas and Kevin Fogolin, and what they had accomplished since they graduated from Robron Secondary in Campbell River in 1987. (If you don't remember, I think it's an interesting story; you could click on the link!)
Anyway, the film they were collaborating on came out a year ago. It's called Snowman, and it premiered last December at the Whistler Film Festival, where it was pronounced winner of the “best mountain culture film” award.
It recently became available, so they sent me a copy, and you get a brief review:
First and dominant impression: the scenery. Much of it is from the mountains above Toba Inlet – the place where Kevin very nearly cashed in his chips in a helicopter accident, and it is spectacular. Watching Kevin in action killing potential avalanches is breathtaking. And I loved the shots of places I know, Campbell River particularly. There's no question that the outstanding photography makes the film, and will be what most people will remember about it most vividly.
But I'm not really a film person, and I'm not at all a downhill skier so my enthusiasm for high mountain winter scenery, and tracks in endless powder, and avalanches (even those set off deliberately to prevent people dying), and guys doing impossible things with skis and cliffs, is pretty limited.
I was actually more gripped by the human parts of the story: the autobiographical parts where Mike becomes a ground-breaking, trend-setting professional skier while Kevin establishes a career and family in Campbell River. Then how Kevin parlays his love of skiing to become an avalanche expert, which is how he ends up surviving a helicopter crash and the avalanche it triggers.
That's pretty gripping stuff.
The film makers used a good deal of the original Super 8 film footage that Mike and Kevin produced for my class. It was pretty neat to see that again! They even managed to make my comments appear coherent and relaxed, which is not the way I remember the interview.
That's what good editing does, I suppose.
Which is why, although I found them very interesting, I don't altogether trust the interviews, particularly those featuring Kevin's parents and then his wife, Joanne: they all appear very calm, and even analytical, when there must have been times when they had serious doubts and worries.
Emotionally, I was with Kevin's spotter on the helicopter, who, having survived, then caught the first available float plane out of Toba Inlet and returned to Toronto!
Smart guy.
Anyway, the film they were collaborating on came out a year ago. It's called Snowman, and it premiered last December at the Whistler Film Festival, where it was pronounced winner of the “best mountain culture film” award.
It recently became available, so they sent me a copy, and you get a brief review:
First and dominant impression: the scenery. Much of it is from the mountains above Toba Inlet – the place where Kevin very nearly cashed in his chips in a helicopter accident, and it is spectacular. Watching Kevin in action killing potential avalanches is breathtaking. And I loved the shots of places I know, Campbell River particularly. There's no question that the outstanding photography makes the film, and will be what most people will remember about it most vividly.
But I'm not really a film person, and I'm not at all a downhill skier so my enthusiasm for high mountain winter scenery, and tracks in endless powder, and avalanches (even those set off deliberately to prevent people dying), and guys doing impossible things with skis and cliffs, is pretty limited.
I was actually more gripped by the human parts of the story: the autobiographical parts where Mike becomes a ground-breaking, trend-setting professional skier while Kevin establishes a career and family in Campbell River. Then how Kevin parlays his love of skiing to become an avalanche expert, which is how he ends up surviving a helicopter crash and the avalanche it triggers.
That's pretty gripping stuff.
The film makers used a good deal of the original Super 8 film footage that Mike and Kevin produced for my class. It was pretty neat to see that again! They even managed to make my comments appear coherent and relaxed, which is not the way I remember the interview.
That's what good editing does, I suppose.
Which is why, although I found them very interesting, I don't altogether trust the interviews, particularly those featuring Kevin's parents and then his wife, Joanne: they all appear very calm, and even analytical, when there must have been times when they had serious doubts and worries.
Emotionally, I was with Kevin's spotter on the helicopter, who, having survived, then caught the first available float plane out of Toba Inlet and returned to Toronto!
Smart guy.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Reflections on an historic election
I believe we may just have seen our first election result propelled largely by social media!
In 2005, the first provincial election our MLA, Claire Trevena, ran in and ultimately won, we appointed a “social media” young person, who apparently understood this wave of the future, to run that side of the campaign for our campaign team. She started out enthusiastically enough, but, although I was very involved in the nuts and bolts of that campaign, I didn't notice much effect. I do believe Claire had a Facebook account, and I believe it was updated regularly, although I could be wrong; that could easily have come later.
My imperfect memory recalls the next campaign being much the same.
In fact, it wasn't until the one in 2013 – the one we might have nearly lost for Claire – that we got a glimpse of the power of Facebook and Twitter, although I certainly didn't recognize it at the time.
And I could be wrong: at the time I thought the whisper campaign that helped re-elect the thoroughly-discredited Clark BCLiberals (and nearly sank Claire in consequence) was the result of a sleaze campaign focused on local radio; now I think Facebook may have played a part.
However, I didn't have a Facebook account at the time, and, apart from our kids and their friends, I didn't know anyone who did.
Fact is, I totally misinterpreted the medium, and it wasn't until this election that I got it.
I'd heard politicians being advised, “You've got to be on Facebook and Twitter, and you have to post regularly. Encourage your constituents to follow you.” That appeared to be happening, but I didn't see much utility apart from being useful for keeping in touch with constituents. Just like the weekly emails our MLA sends out.
So this election was an eye-opener.
I started on Facebook last spring, mostly because I wanted a way to tell the occasional readers of this occasional blog when I had a new post up. Of course I quickly acquired a number of “friends”, initially all relatives, but later adding people I actually know in my daily life. Shortly after, the pre-election campaign started, and then the election. I quickly noticed that some people (notably friend and colleague Mike Hayes, doing his thing for Murray Rankin and the NDP, and former student, friend-of-the-family and fellow Campbell Riverite Jeremy Latham) had become almost full-time posters and commentators. Naturally, I joined them, because we don't all read the same stuff, and because I like spreading my opinions. (And because sometimes the people I know are idiots and need to be told so!) Political commentary, jokes, and ridicule soon flooded my inbox; the flood increased even as the too-lengthy campaign droned on. Knowing how this works, circles on circles, a Canada-wide venn diagram, I wasn't that surprised to find stuff originating from across Canada, in both official languages, from voters of all ages. I also wasn't surprised to see the ridicule and jokes, those most effective non-party messages, repeated over and over.
I don't think I received even one message from any politician or party that hadn't been paid for. In addition, the stuff that had been paid for was obviously advertising, and equally obviously about as effective as paid advertising usually is: no, I'm not tempted by Conservative ads about tax breaks and niqabs or pipeline advertising about oil. Furthermore, I'll bet the people who are, aren't on Facebook! Money wasted.
And then, while I was counting advance poll ballots, the results came in. I already knew, before we exited, that strategic voting was likely to be very hard on the Conservatives, and that, because the Thanksgiving Day advance polls showed a surge in Liberal votes we were probably looking at a Liberal government. It had already occurred to me (as people working in the same zone house as I can attest!) that a Liberal majority was a possibility. However, I was neither prepared for nor particularly disappointed by the size of the majority.
But on reflection, I could have seen it coming: Facebook was on it.
Two perspicacious columns that, as far as I am concerned, got it exactly right:
1. Chantal Hebert in the Star:
Canada’s progressive majority got its act together on Monday and ushered Stephen Harper out with a vengeance.
In the process they brought their own resolution to the problem of vote splitting on the left of the Conservatives, steamrolling the NDP to hand Justin Trudeau the first Liberal majority victory in 15 years.
And 2. Thomas Homer-Dixon in the Globe:
As soon as the NDP poll numbers turned south in Quebec, the probability that the NDP would win enough seats to form the government dropped precipitously, given the importance of the NDP’s Quebec caucus to the party’s election hopes.
This was a signal to the ABH vote across the country to shift to the Liberals. ABH opinion leaders immediately recognized the implications of the Quebec developments; it took about another two weeks for those implications to be communicated through the ABH crowd and felt strongly in the polls, especially in Ontario. The Liberal Leader, Justin Trudeau, helped the shift by performing well on the stump and in debates.
In 2005, the first provincial election our MLA, Claire Trevena, ran in and ultimately won, we appointed a “social media” young person, who apparently understood this wave of the future, to run that side of the campaign for our campaign team. She started out enthusiastically enough, but, although I was very involved in the nuts and bolts of that campaign, I didn't notice much effect. I do believe Claire had a Facebook account, and I believe it was updated regularly, although I could be wrong; that could easily have come later.
My imperfect memory recalls the next campaign being much the same.
In fact, it wasn't until the one in 2013 – the one we might have nearly lost for Claire – that we got a glimpse of the power of Facebook and Twitter, although I certainly didn't recognize it at the time.
And I could be wrong: at the time I thought the whisper campaign that helped re-elect the thoroughly-discredited Clark BCLiberals (and nearly sank Claire in consequence) was the result of a sleaze campaign focused on local radio; now I think Facebook may have played a part.
However, I didn't have a Facebook account at the time, and, apart from our kids and their friends, I didn't know anyone who did.
Fact is, I totally misinterpreted the medium, and it wasn't until this election that I got it.
I'd heard politicians being advised, “You've got to be on Facebook and Twitter, and you have to post regularly. Encourage your constituents to follow you.” That appeared to be happening, but I didn't see much utility apart from being useful for keeping in touch with constituents. Just like the weekly emails our MLA sends out.
So this election was an eye-opener.
I started on Facebook last spring, mostly because I wanted a way to tell the occasional readers of this occasional blog when I had a new post up. Of course I quickly acquired a number of “friends”, initially all relatives, but later adding people I actually know in my daily life. Shortly after, the pre-election campaign started, and then the election. I quickly noticed that some people (notably friend and colleague Mike Hayes, doing his thing for Murray Rankin and the NDP, and former student, friend-of-the-family and fellow Campbell Riverite Jeremy Latham) had become almost full-time posters and commentators. Naturally, I joined them, because we don't all read the same stuff, and because I like spreading my opinions. (And because sometimes the people I know are idiots and need to be told so!) Political commentary, jokes, and ridicule soon flooded my inbox; the flood increased even as the too-lengthy campaign droned on. Knowing how this works, circles on circles, a Canada-wide venn diagram, I wasn't that surprised to find stuff originating from across Canada, in both official languages, from voters of all ages. I also wasn't surprised to see the ridicule and jokes, those most effective non-party messages, repeated over and over.
I don't think I received even one message from any politician or party that hadn't been paid for. In addition, the stuff that had been paid for was obviously advertising, and equally obviously about as effective as paid advertising usually is: no, I'm not tempted by Conservative ads about tax breaks and niqabs or pipeline advertising about oil. Furthermore, I'll bet the people who are, aren't on Facebook! Money wasted.
And then, while I was counting advance poll ballots, the results came in. I already knew, before we exited, that strategic voting was likely to be very hard on the Conservatives, and that, because the Thanksgiving Day advance polls showed a surge in Liberal votes we were probably looking at a Liberal government. It had already occurred to me (as people working in the same zone house as I can attest!) that a Liberal majority was a possibility. However, I was neither prepared for nor particularly disappointed by the size of the majority.
But on reflection, I could have seen it coming: Facebook was on it.
Two perspicacious columns that, as far as I am concerned, got it exactly right:
1. Chantal Hebert in the Star:
Canada’s progressive majority got its act together on Monday and ushered Stephen Harper out with a vengeance.
In the process they brought their own resolution to the problem of vote splitting on the left of the Conservatives, steamrolling the NDP to hand Justin Trudeau the first Liberal majority victory in 15 years.
And 2. Thomas Homer-Dixon in the Globe:
As soon as the NDP poll numbers turned south in Quebec, the probability that the NDP would win enough seats to form the government dropped precipitously, given the importance of the NDP’s Quebec caucus to the party’s election hopes.
This was a signal to the ABH vote across the country to shift to the Liberals. ABH opinion leaders immediately recognized the implications of the Quebec developments; it took about another two weeks for those implications to be communicated through the ABH crowd and felt strongly in the polls, especially in Ontario. The Liberal Leader, Justin Trudeau, helped the shift by performing well on the stump and in debates.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Globe letter
How is spending $5.3 billion of our
"hard-earned tax dollars" on paying off the dairy and auto industries to
soften them up for accepting the TPP deal either good public policy
or responsible stewardship of scarce resources?
--published in the Globe and Mail October 8, 2015
--published in the Globe and Mail October 8, 2015
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Just in case you have any complaints about the Canadian medical system...
Our daughter, Enid, is married to Isaac, who is a scientist working in the enormous National Lab in Richland, Washington State. Through work Isaac has a very good --and very expensive, even with the subsidy -- medical plan, which covers Enid.
Enid and Isaac recently acquired a new baby, Louis Harree Arnquist, who is perfect in every way.
But his birth is when his parents' encounters with the health bureaucracy began.
Here's her rant on the subject:
1. On Louis' 32nd day of life, Isaac tries to enroll Louis on his
health plan at work. He soon finds out that he needed to do it no later
than Louis' 31st day of life (which was a Sunday, we had visitors, we're
tired new parents, and life is crazy).
2. He
writes an appeal letter, which has to be mailed old style. No one will
answer a phone or write an email - it is simply not done even though it
is 2015. We assume that the insurance will cover him retroactively once
the appeal has gone through. Isaac does everything he can to make it
happen faster than the maximum 30 days, but there isn't much he can do
in the end.
3. In the meantime, we make plans
for alternative coverage JUST IN CASE. We fill out numerous forms on the
Washington Health Plan Finder website and are able to look at plans and
compare. All 56 are all terrible (not a single one has Louis'
pediatrician or the Richland hospital in their network!) but it's better
than nothing. We can't enroll him until October 1st - that is the rule
lest you try to insure an already sick child.
4. I call in to ask for the deadline to purchase the Oct. 1 plan. I'm told I have until September 23rd at 5pm.
5.
September 23rd, we get bad news from Isaac's work plan. They won't
cover Louis because it was day 32 of his life and that is the rule. At
least it's good timing, because we can still purchase alternative
coverage, or so we think. I try to purchase said coverage, but suddenly I
can't see the available plans. I call to find out what's going on, and
the man on the other end says the website isn't working properly, and I
should try on Saturday. He assumes they will be manning the phones on
Saturday because the website will be down the rest of the week. I ask
for assurance that they will let me get Oct. 1 coverage despite missing
the deadline. He says it should be fine.
6.
Saturday Sept. 26, I try to log on to the website but it's still down.
It claims it will be back on Sunday at 9:00am. The message saying the
site is down is dated Sept. 23.
7. Sunday: Still down.
8.
Monday: I can log on, but I still can't see any plans. This is the
point where my memory is blurry because I talked to at least 5 people in
3 days. But I know that on Monday they told me that even though I
hadn't been asked to by the website or a person on the phone, I would
have to upload our financial info. The person on the other end assures
me that it's not my fault and it won't affect my Oct. 1 coverage. He/she
(I can't remember) is surprised that I was ever able to see plan
options without having uploaded this stuff. That was an error. I upload
our info within 5 minutes. I call back to find out why I still can't see
plans and the woman tells me to wait. I obsessively check for a status
update. At some point in the day, the website is down again.
9.
On Tuesday I talk to two more people. One woman hangs up on me TWICE by
accident. Another writes a "ticket" to get someone to take a look at
what is going on with my account. I can't remember what else happened on
Tuesday but I definitely cried on the phone out of frustration. One
woman told me that Louis was eligible for the subsidized health plan. I
explained that he was definitely not, which should have been obvious
from the eligibility determination and our financial information. Maybe
it's her first day?
10. On Wednesday, I call
again to find out why our problem APPEARS to have been fixed and yet I
still can't see plans. He realizes that I need to upload Louis' birth
certificate. Again, I haven't been told this or seen that this needs to
be done anywhere on the website. The man on the phone is really kind,
but I cry anyway because I'm so tired of dealing with new problems every
day. He writes a new "ticket" to get the tech people to sort my account
out properly this time.
11. Thursday morning: website is down again.
12.
Thursday afternoon: Huzzah! I can see plans!! I choose a plan! It's
terrible. The deductible is in the mid-1000s and after the deductible I
pay 50% coinsurance until I reach the yearly out-of-pocket maximum which
is a crazy $12 500. I would pay for a more expensive plan (this one is
about $111 a month, as I recall) but those ones have no out of pocket
maximum for out-of-network hospitals and don't give me anything more for
his out-of-network pediatrician care. I need SOME assurance that I
won't go bankrupt if Louis has a serious complication.
13.
They force me to pay $25 a month for a terrible dental plan. My baby
has no teeth. Obviously. He will be eligible for Isaac's plan again in
January, by which time he still will not have any teeth.
14.
I apply, and I can only see that Louis is enrolled in the dental plan. I
can't see anything about a health plan. I call and ask what's going on
and the woman says her system isn't working. I need to call back right
away and see if someone else can help. I call back and talk to a nice
fellow who tells me he's going to write another ticket (this is #3!) to
see if the tech people can sort this out for me. He asks me what plan I
chose, but I only remember the name of the insurer because the plan
names are pretty dull.
15. I wait, and REALLY
hope that some insurance company will insure Louis for Oct. 1 despite
the Washington Health Plan Finder's incompetence. I feel pessimistic
after our experience with Isaac's insurance. If he can only be covered
for Nov. 1st, we will pay a $400 penalty in our taxes for having an
uninsured child for 3 months.
I might as well
mention that this week I sorted through the seven plans offered by my
employer because I have to choose one for when I go back to work in
December. It took me three hours to make an informed choice, and I'm
still not sure I really understand the difference between the plans.
It's always a gamble, because you never know what care you'll need ahead
of time. Will it be cancer, a car wreck or absolutely nothing? I prefer
not to gamble and choose a slightly more expensive plan (but not the
most expensive one, because that one would cost me $500 a month).
I
also might add that I am fairly privileged. I have enough free time to
deal with this kind of stuff (although not a ton, being a new mom with
some work obligations while I'm on maternity leave), I have a lot of
education that has prepared me to advocate for myself intelligently and
understand complicated language in health plans, and I have enough money
to pay the cost of the insurance and the exorbitant out-of-pocket
costs. Many Washingtonians in my position are not so educated with so
much free time and money.
I remember fondly
how annoyed I got with MSP in British Columbia. How adorable. I long for
a time when I knew how much everything would cost me when I went to the
doctor or hospital (always zero). Now even if I have the required
insurance, I'm never sure what's covered or what it will cost me. I have
to check to see if a doctor is out-of-network before I choose one (too
late for Louis). I have to know which hospitals I can go to before I go
to one. I have to spend hours on the phone trying to sort it out when
two separate labs bill my insurance company and my insurance company
doesn't pay the bill (that happened last winter).
In
short, I think this is a terrible system. I do not want to hear any
more politicians claiming that Americans have the best health care in
the world. Maybe, but only for a select few. And even those people
probably spent hours and hours trying to sort through endless healthcare
choices to get the best deal from some insurance company, which is
really just an expensive middle man.
Lest we forget….
Nothing changes until we change our electoral system.
Amid all the noise of the phony niqab war, the slicing and dicing of the federal electorate, and the multitudinous outrages the Harper administration has visited on Canada and the Canadian government, we're in danger of forgetting that while this election is critically important, really, we should be thinking about the next one.
Because if we don't want to continue down the path the Harperites have led us, we're going to have to make it impossible for 38% of the electorate to effectively impose one-party rule.
We're going to have to change the way we elect governments.
For the first time ever, I think, the four major parties all have clear proposals on the table:
1. The Conservatives offer the status quo, and why not? It has served them extremely well recently, and conforms admirably to their vision of a segmented, special-interest, hot-button electorate.
We've now had occasion to try it, and that should be enough incentive to look at the alternatives on offer.
2. The NDP and Greens are offering Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMPR). Other (admittedly much smaller, like Germany and New Zealand) countries have made that work effectively. There are a number of variants, but essentially the elector votes in a constituency for a member, and then, in consideration of the national popular vote, parties get to appoint members as well. This would serve the Greens (who elect one, but poll north of 5%) well, and would encourage any number of small parties. It would undoubtedly represent the electorate better than any other system. In Germany the system has a threshold for representation, which largely solves the Israeli problem of very small parties distorting the will of the majority in exchange for becoming part of a majority coalition.
The Greens have no chance to be either government or influential this election, so if you want the Greens to increase their numbers and their influence in the future, paradoxically this time you will have to vote NDP. (!)
3. The Liberals are offering a system they call Alternative Vote (AV). It's the system most political parties now use to choose their leader: the elector votes for his/her favourite, then provides a second choice, and even a third. The count starts with all the votes; if no one gets 50%, the bottom person drops off and his/her second choices are counted, etc., until one candidate has at least 50%.
That's the system that gave the Liberals Stephane Dion, almost no one's first choice, on the 4th ballot.
The only time it was used in Canadian elections, as far as I am aware, was in 1952, when it led to the first (minority) Social Credit government in BC. The next election, fought in 1953 under the same system, returned a majority Socred government...
...which then promptly changed the electoral system back to the traditional “first-past-the-post” (FPTP) system and ruled until defeated by Dave Barrett's NDP in 1972.
A much more complex variant, actually a combination of AV and MMPR, nearly became BC's electoral system in 2005, but got only 57.7% in the referendum vote, and required 60%.
AV is a lousy system if you're a fan of any small party, in that it is unlikely to elect candidates of such parties, but at least, unlike FPTP, it permits the majority to form government. It also has the benefit of legitimizing individual MPs, in that all of them know they represent at least 50% of their electorate. It's even possible this would embolden some of them to think for themselves, or at least represent their constituents.
And it's easy to explain and easy to implement, so it would be an easier sell to the general electorate than MMPR.
Either the NDP/Green alternative or the Liberal one would be a vast improvement over what we have.
So this time, let's make electoral reform job #1, and let's get it done even if we have to vote for a party we might not otherwise support.
Remember ABC: Anyone But Conservative!
Amid all the noise of the phony niqab war, the slicing and dicing of the federal electorate, and the multitudinous outrages the Harper administration has visited on Canada and the Canadian government, we're in danger of forgetting that while this election is critically important, really, we should be thinking about the next one.
Because if we don't want to continue down the path the Harperites have led us, we're going to have to make it impossible for 38% of the electorate to effectively impose one-party rule.
We're going to have to change the way we elect governments.
For the first time ever, I think, the four major parties all have clear proposals on the table:
1. The Conservatives offer the status quo, and why not? It has served them extremely well recently, and conforms admirably to their vision of a segmented, special-interest, hot-button electorate.
We've now had occasion to try it, and that should be enough incentive to look at the alternatives on offer.
2. The NDP and Greens are offering Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMPR). Other (admittedly much smaller, like Germany and New Zealand) countries have made that work effectively. There are a number of variants, but essentially the elector votes in a constituency for a member, and then, in consideration of the national popular vote, parties get to appoint members as well. This would serve the Greens (who elect one, but poll north of 5%) well, and would encourage any number of small parties. It would undoubtedly represent the electorate better than any other system. In Germany the system has a threshold for representation, which largely solves the Israeli problem of very small parties distorting the will of the majority in exchange for becoming part of a majority coalition.
The Greens have no chance to be either government or influential this election, so if you want the Greens to increase their numbers and their influence in the future, paradoxically this time you will have to vote NDP. (!)
3. The Liberals are offering a system they call Alternative Vote (AV). It's the system most political parties now use to choose their leader: the elector votes for his/her favourite, then provides a second choice, and even a third. The count starts with all the votes; if no one gets 50%, the bottom person drops off and his/her second choices are counted, etc., until one candidate has at least 50%.
That's the system that gave the Liberals Stephane Dion, almost no one's first choice, on the 4th ballot.
The only time it was used in Canadian elections, as far as I am aware, was in 1952, when it led to the first (minority) Social Credit government in BC. The next election, fought in 1953 under the same system, returned a majority Socred government...
...which then promptly changed the electoral system back to the traditional “first-past-the-post” (FPTP) system and ruled until defeated by Dave Barrett's NDP in 1972.
A much more complex variant, actually a combination of AV and MMPR, nearly became BC's electoral system in 2005, but got only 57.7% in the referendum vote, and required 60%.
AV is a lousy system if you're a fan of any small party, in that it is unlikely to elect candidates of such parties, but at least, unlike FPTP, it permits the majority to form government. It also has the benefit of legitimizing individual MPs, in that all of them know they represent at least 50% of their electorate. It's even possible this would embolden some of them to think for themselves, or at least represent their constituents.
And it's easy to explain and easy to implement, so it would be an easier sell to the general electorate than MMPR.
Either the NDP/Green alternative or the Liberal one would be a vast improvement over what we have.
So this time, let's make electoral reform job #1, and let's get it done even if we have to vote for a party we might not otherwise support.
Remember ABC: Anyone But Conservative!
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Update: our community mailboxes
So what’s up with Canada Post and the mailboxes they promised we’d have no later than September 21?
Turns out, in Campbell River the Canada Post contractors got only the first third done, prepared the sites for most — but not all — the others, and then, near as I can tell, halted the project. Maybe only temporarily, but I’ve seen no progress since well before the 21st.
People here tend to blame the incompetence of Canada Post, an easy target. Some even blame the union (how on earth does that work?!)
But what if the apparent stoppage is deliberate policy? What if someone has finally figured out that if the Conservatives don’t win the election, they’re not actually going to need those boxes in those locations?
That would actually be kind of smart!
And nobody at Canada Post is going to put out the obvious press release, saying, “It’s likely there will be a change in government after the election, so we’re going to wait until we get our new instructions.”
Even if that were entirely accurate!
September 29 revision:
Sandy was right and I was wrong: Canada Post is merely incompetent, proved by the fact that our mailbox arrived sometime late yesterday.
Which once again demonstrates the wisdom of Occam's Razor: the simplest answer is probably correct.
Justus' Addendum also applies: it's almost always delusional to look for any of subtlety, strategic thinking, or intelligence when dealing with a bureaucracy!
Turns out, in Campbell River the Canada Post contractors got only the first third done, prepared the sites for most — but not all — the others, and then, near as I can tell, halted the project. Maybe only temporarily, but I’ve seen no progress since well before the 21st.
People here tend to blame the incompetence of Canada Post, an easy target. Some even blame the union (how on earth does that work?!)
But what if the apparent stoppage is deliberate policy? What if someone has finally figured out that if the Conservatives don’t win the election, they’re not actually going to need those boxes in those locations?
That would actually be kind of smart!
And nobody at Canada Post is going to put out the obvious press release, saying, “It’s likely there will be a change in government after the election, so we’re going to wait until we get our new instructions.”
Even if that were entirely accurate!
September 29 revision:
Sandy was right and I was wrong: Canada Post is merely incompetent, proved by the fact that our mailbox arrived sometime late yesterday.
Which once again demonstrates the wisdom of Occam's Razor: the simplest answer is probably correct.
Justus' Addendum also applies: it's almost always delusional to look for any of subtlety, strategic thinking, or intelligence when dealing with a bureaucracy!
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Notes from my walk through our neighbourhood today, September 20, 2015
1. Usually by this time there would be Conservative signs sprinkled throughout the Rockland area where we live. This time they’re almost non-existent, although our across-the-street neighbour finally got his up this week, after our NDP sign had been up for nearly a month. As a rule, he beats us to it.
2. Many of the places I associate with Conservative signs now sport Liberal signs. But not enough to be a trend.
3. The Liberal signs are red. Except the bag signs, which started to appear this week. They’re quite distinctly orange, and from a distance I kept mistaking them for orange Blaney NDP signs. The Liberal candidate’s name is Schwarzhoff, hence takes up a lot of room on a small sign, hence is rendered in a small typeface, so you can be quite close before you notice the difference.
4. I cannot see how the Liberal campaign would profit from this colour synergy, so maybe what we have here is the first clear indication of cooperation to come, as it surely must: there’s simply not enough separating the NDP and Liberal platforms to allow the Conservatives to carry on. And it’s pretty obvious by now that no party is en route for a majority.
5. Judging only by the sign campaign, North Island-Powell River will return an NDP member. (Fortunately, there are other reasons to believe this as well!)
6. Canada Post sent us a letter three weeks ago:
"You will start picking up your mail and parcels at your new community mailbox on Monday, September 21.
We have started to install community mailboxes in your neighbourhood and to deliver keys to customers. If you haven’t received your keys or your mailbox has not yet been installed, don’t worry; you will have everything you need to start using your community mailbox by September 21...
Canada Post is proud to serve you and we are committed to making this mail delivery change as smooth and convenient as possible."
Today there are no new community mailboxes in our immediate neighbourhood. Although most of the pads appear to have been prepared, some locations are still just holes in the ground.
Bet we don't get any mail tomorrow.
Just on the other side of the hill, en route to the Beaver Lodge Lands, I spotted a couple of the new ones, and of course all the ones I expected, the ones that have been there since that subdivision started to fill up, some 30 years ago.
2. Many of the places I associate with Conservative signs now sport Liberal signs. But not enough to be a trend.
3. The Liberal signs are red. Except the bag signs, which started to appear this week. They’re quite distinctly orange, and from a distance I kept mistaking them for orange Blaney NDP signs. The Liberal candidate’s name is Schwarzhoff, hence takes up a lot of room on a small sign, hence is rendered in a small typeface, so you can be quite close before you notice the difference.
4. I cannot see how the Liberal campaign would profit from this colour synergy, so maybe what we have here is the first clear indication of cooperation to come, as it surely must: there’s simply not enough separating the NDP and Liberal platforms to allow the Conservatives to carry on. And it’s pretty obvious by now that no party is en route for a majority.
5. Judging only by the sign campaign, North Island-Powell River will return an NDP member. (Fortunately, there are other reasons to believe this as well!)
6. Canada Post sent us a letter three weeks ago:
"You will start picking up your mail and parcels at your new community mailbox on Monday, September 21.
We have started to install community mailboxes in your neighbourhood and to deliver keys to customers. If you haven’t received your keys or your mailbox has not yet been installed, don’t worry; you will have everything you need to start using your community mailbox by September 21...
Canada Post is proud to serve you and we are committed to making this mail delivery change as smooth and convenient as possible."
Today there are no new community mailboxes in our immediate neighbourhood. Although most of the pads appear to have been prepared, some locations are still just holes in the ground.
Bet we don't get any mail tomorrow.
Just on the other side of the hill, en route to the Beaver Lodge Lands, I spotted a couple of the new ones, and of course all the ones I expected, the ones that have been there since that subdivision started to fill up, some 30 years ago.
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Some modest requests
For me this election it's all about replacing the toxic Harper government, and I'd vote for anyone most likely to do that. Luckily for me that's the NDP candidate in our riding, but I'd vote Liberal or even (gasp!) Green if I thought those were more realistic choices.
So I'm happy to report they all have viable plans that would improve the present democratic deficit enormously.
Which brings us to the rest of the agenda for the next government, where, once again, I'm lucky because the NDP platform appears to me to be both realistic and transformative and consequently, easy to vote for.
But - although it pains me to say it, and maybe it's a “third party” thing - there are some files on which the Liberals clearly own the way forward.
So I'd like the next government, whether coalition, NDP, or Liberal, to steal some of those ideas, please, and implement them.
For me, infrastructure support for cities lines up right behind affordable child care. The Liberal plan to go into more debt while the interest rate is at an historical low so that the federal government can get involved in city infrastructure spending makes more sense to me than obsessing with “balancing” the budget, which is always a mugs game anyway. Over 80% of us live in metropolitan areas, and conditions are not improving, especially in the larger centres. Furthermore, such spending, it has been demonstrated repeatedly, is good for the economy, which just happens to be tanking under the careful ministrations of the Conservatives.
Win-win, in other words.
Then there's the Senate, our expensive, ineffective, but unfortunately necessary albatross.
I'm for abolition, of course, so it's easy to vote for that. But I'm also realistic enough to know that Prince Edward Island and Quebec, among others, will never agree to abolition. They have their reasons, and they're not illegitimate. Abolition also means opening the Constitution, and, having watched both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown debacles, I'm not prepared to go there again. For me, that's off the table, which means that reform is the only realistic option. The Liberals just happen to have implemented what I think could be the most transformative reform possible: they've removed Liberal senators from the Liberal Parliamentary Caucus, and have promised to reform the way senators are appointed.
Let's have more of that, please.
And finally, the drugs file. The Conservatives have been disastrously wrong about this, and any of the opposition parties would improve matters dramatically. But the Liberals are correct to press legalization and control, which is a far better option than the decriminalization the NDP is proposing.
I was watching some of our very middle-class neighbours sitting out on their deck with some friends, chatting and overlooking the pool the other night. They all looked to be in their 50's. I was busy doing the dishes, and happened to see one of the guys smoking what appeared to be a cigarette. He didn't appear to be exhaling smoke; I then saw him pass that cigarette to the woman next along. I couldn't see the others, but eventually the cigarette came back to him and the process was repeated.
It's not news, but Justin Trudeau is on to something when middle-class Canadians sit calmly on a deck of an evening, evidently totally unmindful of who can see them, and pass cigarettes around!
Just sayin'.
So I'm happy to report they all have viable plans that would improve the present democratic deficit enormously.
Which brings us to the rest of the agenda for the next government, where, once again, I'm lucky because the NDP platform appears to me to be both realistic and transformative and consequently, easy to vote for.
But - although it pains me to say it, and maybe it's a “third party” thing - there are some files on which the Liberals clearly own the way forward.
So I'd like the next government, whether coalition, NDP, or Liberal, to steal some of those ideas, please, and implement them.
For me, infrastructure support for cities lines up right behind affordable child care. The Liberal plan to go into more debt while the interest rate is at an historical low so that the federal government can get involved in city infrastructure spending makes more sense to me than obsessing with “balancing” the budget, which is always a mugs game anyway. Over 80% of us live in metropolitan areas, and conditions are not improving, especially in the larger centres. Furthermore, such spending, it has been demonstrated repeatedly, is good for the economy, which just happens to be tanking under the careful ministrations of the Conservatives.
Win-win, in other words.
Then there's the Senate, our expensive, ineffective, but unfortunately necessary albatross.
I'm for abolition, of course, so it's easy to vote for that. But I'm also realistic enough to know that Prince Edward Island and Quebec, among others, will never agree to abolition. They have their reasons, and they're not illegitimate. Abolition also means opening the Constitution, and, having watched both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown debacles, I'm not prepared to go there again. For me, that's off the table, which means that reform is the only realistic option. The Liberals just happen to have implemented what I think could be the most transformative reform possible: they've removed Liberal senators from the Liberal Parliamentary Caucus, and have promised to reform the way senators are appointed.
Let's have more of that, please.
And finally, the drugs file. The Conservatives have been disastrously wrong about this, and any of the opposition parties would improve matters dramatically. But the Liberals are correct to press legalization and control, which is a far better option than the decriminalization the NDP is proposing.
I was watching some of our very middle-class neighbours sitting out on their deck with some friends, chatting and overlooking the pool the other night. They all looked to be in their 50's. I was busy doing the dishes, and happened to see one of the guys smoking what appeared to be a cigarette. He didn't appear to be exhaling smoke; I then saw him pass that cigarette to the woman next along. I couldn't see the others, but eventually the cigarette came back to him and the process was repeated.
It's not news, but Justin Trudeau is on to something when middle-class Canadians sit calmly on a deck of an evening, evidently totally unmindful of who can see them, and pass cigarettes around!
Just sayin'.
Sunday, August 16, 2015
News: Conservatives want to warn us about change!
A
few days ago my sister-in-law, Marion, sent me and a raft of others a
link to an article in the New York Times called “The Closing of the Canadian Mind” by Toronto writer Stephen Marche. It's perhaps a
little over-the-top but makes a good case, seasoned with a dose of
acid, for why we desperately need a change in government; I recommend
it.
You
will undoubtedly already have read it.
Consequent
to this, in my email inbox this morning, I received a copy of a
letter from one of the others on the raft. It was addressed to
Marion, and titled, “Be careful what you wish for...” It claimed
to be based on a reading of her blog.
It clearly wasn't. It was a reaction to her recommending the New York
Times article. But OK.
What
struck me, however, and what I cannot get rid of, is the
smugly condescending, even chauvinistic tone of the title: as if a successful
semi-retired businessman from Penticton knows more about the
needs of the country than a retired judge from Toronto, and feels
free to point out the errors in her thinking!
As
if.
I'm
guessing he votes Conservative.
In
reaction, I thought I'd compile a little list of my top 10 political
wishes for implementation after the campaign ends, just in case
anyone has forgotten why we need change.
I
want...
1.
an electoral system that doesn't reward 39% of voters with all the
marbles.
2.
a government that respects and obeys the law, particularly the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms
3.
a government which isn't in perpetual election mode and doesn't
game the system for partisan advantage.
4.
a Senate (if, as appears almost certain, there must be one) that
actually applies “serious second thought” to government bills
5.
a Security apparatus that is supervised by either an independent or
a multi-party political board
6.
parliamentary committees that actually consider the bills and
issues before them, and are free to report to Parliament on the evidence, in a
non-partisan way
7.
a Ministry of Defense that respects its service men and women, and
proves it by looking after the injured
8.
non-partisan judicial appointments
9.
an end to partisan advertising on the public dime
10.
a foreign policy that is about more than unconditional support for
Israel
There
is, of course, an entire litany of other issues: support for the CBC,
resuming the long-form census, answering questions in Question
Period, loosening the rules for charity political involvement...and
I, just like you, could go on and on. In fact, the Tyee compiled a list of 70 outrages so we don't have to try to remember them all.
The
case is depressingly clear; it's no wonder Conservatives want to
warn us about the dangers of change.
Because it sure is tempting!
Because it sure is tempting!
Friday, July 3, 2015
A story...
...In which Justus learns something useful:
Last summer San bought a large blow-up wading pool. For the grandchildren.
It's fine, and the kids loved it, but inflation is time-consuming and a bit tricky. As one might expect, it takes a lot of air.
So last summer I thought, "I'll just use my shop vac". The big one, the one that actually works and that I use for cleaning the workshop and also, when that was necessary, for unflooding the basement. Turns out it sucks really well, but doesn't blow worth shit.
Happily, I had an old one, on its last legs, which no longer sucked much, but blew long enough to inflate the pool.
As I said, the kids loved it, and consequently, so did we.
That was last summer, and this winter I did a cleanup. The old vac was one of the casualties, because I'd forgotten why I still had it but remembered it was nearly dead.
So we arrive at this year. San and various grandchildren would like the pool up. My shop vac still isn't adequate and our house vacuums don't blow.
But, I remembered, somewhere we have an inflation pump, for the large air mattress we used to go camping to Ontario which we no longer have because it sprang one too many leaks.
I found it: 12V; I got a pump that plugs into the car.
I couldn't see how I could get the car close enough to the pool.
So, I reasoned, there must be a transformer available that would do the trick. And there was, AC to DC, available at Canadian Tire.
So I bought it, brought it home, and plugged the pump in. It ran, but barely. Not nearly enough to inflate the pool.
Off to the internet, to discover that, while the output of my new transformer was 12volts, 2amps, the car's output is 12 volts, 15amps.
So I maneuvered the car down to near the pool, nearly taking out the bird feeder, and inflated the pool.
And resolved never to try that again.
Instead, I ordered the correct transformer, worth considerably more, from Amazon.
It arrived today, and works exactly as advertised.
Anyone want a spare AC to DC transformer in perfect working order, for free?
Last summer San bought a large blow-up wading pool. For the grandchildren.
It's fine, and the kids loved it, but inflation is time-consuming and a bit tricky. As one might expect, it takes a lot of air.
So last summer I thought, "I'll just use my shop vac". The big one, the one that actually works and that I use for cleaning the workshop and also, when that was necessary, for unflooding the basement. Turns out it sucks really well, but doesn't blow worth shit.
Happily, I had an old one, on its last legs, which no longer sucked much, but blew long enough to inflate the pool.
As I said, the kids loved it, and consequently, so did we.
That was last summer, and this winter I did a cleanup. The old vac was one of the casualties, because I'd forgotten why I still had it but remembered it was nearly dead.
So we arrive at this year. San and various grandchildren would like the pool up. My shop vac still isn't adequate and our house vacuums don't blow.
But, I remembered, somewhere we have an inflation pump, for the large air mattress we used to go camping to Ontario which we no longer have because it sprang one too many leaks.
I found it: 12V; I got a pump that plugs into the car.
I couldn't see how I could get the car close enough to the pool.
So, I reasoned, there must be a transformer available that would do the trick. And there was, AC to DC, available at Canadian Tire.
So I bought it, brought it home, and plugged the pump in. It ran, but barely. Not nearly enough to inflate the pool.
Off to the internet, to discover that, while the output of my new transformer was 12volts, 2amps, the car's output is 12 volts, 15amps.
So I maneuvered the car down to near the pool, nearly taking out the bird feeder, and inflated the pool.
And resolved never to try that again.
Instead, I ordered the correct transformer, worth considerably more, from Amazon.
It arrived today, and works exactly as advertised.
Anyone want a spare AC to DC transformer in perfect working order, for free?
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
The Alberta election: some random thoughts
1 How about that election, eh?
It was certainly one for the record books, like the Rae win in Ontario in 1990, but much more decisive: all the polls said NDP majority, Conservatives running as far back as 3rd, but almost nobody believed something that politically improbable could happen.
Until it did.
Now, of course, the result appears kind of obvious: this is the province that elected mayors Naheed Nenshi and Don Iveson, the one that elected the most “progressive” of Progressive Conservatives, Alison Redford, when the polls all said that scary Wildrose was sure to win the 2012 election.
So it turns out all that really happened was that Jim Prentice appeared to be both kind of uncharismatic and in the pocket of the oil industry. And Rachel Notley, who almost nobody knew before the campaign, appeared, by contrast, to be kind of charismatic, straight-talking, and progressive, but in a business-friendly way. Really, not scary-NDP at all.
Isn't it delightfully satisfying when political hubris is punished so completely?
2 Many pundits have identified Prentice's “look in the mirror” remark, assigning responsibility for Alberta's current economy to Alberta voters, as deeply offensive, and one of the reasons he and his party were crushed. Although it's hard for an outsider like me to see how he's wrong, he apparently didn't help himself when he added: “We all want to blame somebody for the circumstances that we are in. But the bottom line is we’ve had the highest cost and the best public services in the country, and we haven’t built, basically, a revenue model that sustains them.”
Prentice could hardly say, “We've been pandering to those of you who want first-class services but wanted to pretend they were free for the last 43 years”, but that's what the Alberta economy and political system look like to those of us in the neighbouring provinces.
I'm not convinced Notley's NDP will have an answer. In Canada we're all deeply committed to magical thinking where taxes are concerned. We don't want to pay them, but we insist on the services. The NDP is not better than other parties in this regard: we still believe that taxing the rich and corporations is the solution, when that is, at best, only a small part of it.
Previous Alberta governments could have done like Norway, but voters chose instead not to pay sales tax.
I doubt if Notley's NDP will take that on.
3 It is an article of faith in NDP circles that assembling a database of sympathetic electors and then organizing them to get to the polls is the path to success, and undoubtedly that groundwork is part of it. But in the Alberta election that territory belonged to the PC's, who also happened to have most of the money.
We can probably conclude from this, and the last federal election in Quebec, that sometimes the leader and the conventional wisdom of the day is all that really matters.
Further evidence: the last provincial election in BC, when Christy Clark, a charismatic, photogenic lightweight, beat Adrian Dix, a serious, thoughtful pro, on style points and with a whisper campaign that impugned his morality. The fact that she promised to deliver the wonders of the Ali Baba cave didn't hurt, but I doubt if it tipped the balance.
We could easily have lost North Island, and would have, in spite of far superior organization and enough money, had it not been for Claire's popularity on the islands, where she, as the MLA, had been regularly and where the Liberal candidate hadn't bothered to visit.
4 What kind of premier will Rachel Notley be?
Above all, I suspect, she will be pragmatic. You don't overcome 43 years of PC government by challenging the electorate's fundamental assumptions, at least, not all in one go.
She'll have her work cut out just to deal with the well-funded campaign to undermine her government's legitimacy that is undoubtedly in the offing, and she should expect the federal Conservatives, the ones that offered their congratulations today, to do everything they can to sabotage her success.
I imagine she'll be guided by the examples of Roy Romanow, Alan Blakeney, Gary Doer and Greg Selinger, rather than those of Dave Barrett and Mike Harcourt...
She certainly won't be a socialist premier.
And finally, can we NDPers please abandon the canard that the NDP has to revert to it's “socialist roots” in order to win? That's so clearly not the case!
It was certainly one for the record books, like the Rae win in Ontario in 1990, but much more decisive: all the polls said NDP majority, Conservatives running as far back as 3rd, but almost nobody believed something that politically improbable could happen.
Until it did.
Now, of course, the result appears kind of obvious: this is the province that elected mayors Naheed Nenshi and Don Iveson, the one that elected the most “progressive” of Progressive Conservatives, Alison Redford, when the polls all said that scary Wildrose was sure to win the 2012 election.
So it turns out all that really happened was that Jim Prentice appeared to be both kind of uncharismatic and in the pocket of the oil industry. And Rachel Notley, who almost nobody knew before the campaign, appeared, by contrast, to be kind of charismatic, straight-talking, and progressive, but in a business-friendly way. Really, not scary-NDP at all.
Isn't it delightfully satisfying when political hubris is punished so completely?
2 Many pundits have identified Prentice's “look in the mirror” remark, assigning responsibility for Alberta's current economy to Alberta voters, as deeply offensive, and one of the reasons he and his party were crushed. Although it's hard for an outsider like me to see how he's wrong, he apparently didn't help himself when he added: “We all want to blame somebody for the circumstances that we are in. But the bottom line is we’ve had the highest cost and the best public services in the country, and we haven’t built, basically, a revenue model that sustains them.”
Prentice could hardly say, “We've been pandering to those of you who want first-class services but wanted to pretend they were free for the last 43 years”, but that's what the Alberta economy and political system look like to those of us in the neighbouring provinces.
I'm not convinced Notley's NDP will have an answer. In Canada we're all deeply committed to magical thinking where taxes are concerned. We don't want to pay them, but we insist on the services. The NDP is not better than other parties in this regard: we still believe that taxing the rich and corporations is the solution, when that is, at best, only a small part of it.
Previous Alberta governments could have done like Norway, but voters chose instead not to pay sales tax.
I doubt if Notley's NDP will take that on.
3 It is an article of faith in NDP circles that assembling a database of sympathetic electors and then organizing them to get to the polls is the path to success, and undoubtedly that groundwork is part of it. But in the Alberta election that territory belonged to the PC's, who also happened to have most of the money.
We can probably conclude from this, and the last federal election in Quebec, that sometimes the leader and the conventional wisdom of the day is all that really matters.
Further evidence: the last provincial election in BC, when Christy Clark, a charismatic, photogenic lightweight, beat Adrian Dix, a serious, thoughtful pro, on style points and with a whisper campaign that impugned his morality. The fact that she promised to deliver the wonders of the Ali Baba cave didn't hurt, but I doubt if it tipped the balance.
We could easily have lost North Island, and would have, in spite of far superior organization and enough money, had it not been for Claire's popularity on the islands, where she, as the MLA, had been regularly and where the Liberal candidate hadn't bothered to visit.
4 What kind of premier will Rachel Notley be?
Above all, I suspect, she will be pragmatic. You don't overcome 43 years of PC government by challenging the electorate's fundamental assumptions, at least, not all in one go.
She'll have her work cut out just to deal with the well-funded campaign to undermine her government's legitimacy that is undoubtedly in the offing, and she should expect the federal Conservatives, the ones that offered their congratulations today, to do everything they can to sabotage her success.
I imagine she'll be guided by the examples of Roy Romanow, Alan Blakeney, Gary Doer and Greg Selinger, rather than those of Dave Barrett and Mike Harcourt...
She certainly won't be a socialist premier.
And finally, can we NDPers please abandon the canard that the NDP has to revert to it's “socialist roots” in order to win? That's so clearly not the case!
Friday, April 10, 2015
Duffy, drugs, and redundancy
ONE:
I
never liked Mike Duffy.
And
when, at CTV, he became an obese, hale-fellow-well-met caricature of
“The Parliamentary Reporter”, whose only journalistic attribute
was that he could gain access to any politician he wanted in return
for faithfully reporting the spin of the day, “loathing” is
perhaps not too strong a word for the quality of my admiration.
I
do believe I liked him even less than I like the odious Rex Murphy
today.
So
Stephen Harper appointing him to the Canadian Senate merely confirmed
what I already knew about Harper and his government.
Patrick
Brazeau? Pamela Wallin? Mere icing on that cake.
Subsequently,
when Duffy et al were caught with their faces fully submerged in the
trough, apparently (if reports are to be believed) some people were
astonished that Duffy and Harper took advantage of the appointment.
Apparently no one could have foreseen that the Senate of Canada would
be exploited to satisfy the political desires of the Harper
government.
Seriously?
Did they think Duffy was being recognized for his outstanding
journalism? Did Duffy accept the appointment because of any ambition
to subject the laws passed by the House to “sober second thought”?
Did someone have to point out the trough to Mr Duffy, and did anyone
think it necessary to warn him against immersing himself too deeply?
Of
course not. Duffy did exactly what was expected: he raised tons of
money for the Conservative Party, spoke to partisans whenever asked,
and basked in the limelight and the love. Almost all of it on the
Senate's dime, and while making sure that his income was commensurate
with his new status.
Like
most Canadians, I cheered when Duffy and Co. were outed as the
porkers they are, and followed the subsequent political farce, the
one that culminated in bribery and the self-serving justice imposed
by their fellow Senators, closely.
But
I'm mostly over that now. I'm pretty sure almost none of this will
stick to Harper by the time there's an election on the line, and I'm
pretty sure the Canadian electorate is already feeling even more
cynical about politicians. The Senate, which for procedural reasons
cannot be abolished, will be discredited even further.
I expect this cynicism suits the present government, the one that brought in and passed the "Fair Elections Act" (Bill C23, which actually only makes it harder for disadvantaged people to vote) just fine.
I expect this cynicism suits the present government, the one that brought in and passed the "Fair Elections Act" (Bill C23, which actually only makes it harder for disadvantaged people to vote) just fine.
None
of this is good news for the 60% of Canadians who do not support the
Harper government. I wish I saw any indication that the combined
opposition was actually serious about taking control, changing
government, and cleaning up the mess.
TWO:
Yesterday
the CBC did an expose, revealing that too often your local drug store
carries expired drugs on its shelves:
After Shoppers Drug Mart
recalled one lot of Alesse 21 birth control pills that
expired in September 2014 and were sold to about 100 women, a
Richmond, B.C., resident sent CBC News photos of a newly purchased
non-prescription allergy medication stamped with an expiry date of
August 2014. A CBC producer found more on the shelf at the same
store.
When
CBC News checked a dozen drug stores from three chains in
Toronto, journalists found a diabetic nutritional supplement that
expired last October, other past due allergy medications, an expired
sleep medication and a number of products that expire this
month.
OK;
that's not good. I think we can safely assume that expired drugs are
less effective than they are meant to be, and that's bad. But they're
not toxic, and they do contain active ingredients.
On
those same shelves one can find homeopathic nostrums, “approved” by Health Canada:
Health Canada is
responsible for ensuring that remedies sold to the public are both
safe and effective. In recent years, however, Health Canada has
allowed various natural health products to enter the market without
requiring rigorous proof of effectiveness. Indeed, there are many
remedies and homeopathic preparations currently licensed for sale
that do not contain any of the allegedly active ingredient. A number
of these are homeopathic “nosodes.”
…
Health
Canada continues to assure Canadians that it tests products for
safety and efficacy before allowing them to enter the market. All
approved homeopathic products are given a DIN-HM number.
And
there's more: “Bogus
Children’s Remedy Invented by CBC Marketplace Approved by
Health Canada”
is the headline of a
story which pretty much sums up the contents. Follow the URL for the story.
Personally,
those
stories
strike
me as a lot more
to be really concerned about.
Just
saying.
THREE:
There's
a war memorial in Ottawa, located just outside the front doors of the
Parliament Building.
After
someone was seen urinating on it a few years ago, the Conservatives
thought it would be a good idea to put a guard there.
So there were two ceremonial guards there when a nutter with a rifle decided to make a statement at Canada's Parliament, and the first
thing that nutter did on his way into the building was shoot at both,
and kill one.
The
thing is, those guards, as is the norm, were armed. They just didn't
have any ammunition.
And
that seems fine, if you're only protecting the War Memorial from
urinators.
So,
after Cpl Nathan Cirillo was killed, did the braintrust at the
Parliament Buildings decide to provide the guards with ammunition, so
they could actually guard the war memorial?
Well
no: they provided police protection for the guards at a cost of
$425,000/ year.
Frankly,
that seems more than a little counter-intuitive.
Not
to mention redundant.
Friday, March 6, 2015
Bill C51
19 February, 2015
The Hon Stephen Harper,
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Dear Sir,
I am deeply worried that Bill C51, currently before Parliament, goes well beyond the intentions stated by the government.
I refer you to the articles by a number of very knowledgeable people, including legal and parliamentary experts, who have made this point before me.
And I am old enough to remember the RCMP, acting under similarly-vague authorization to that envisioned by this bill, illegally burning down a Quebec barn belonging to a relative of an FLQ member.
I thought we had learned from that experience.
It is also very worrying that there appears to be no effective oversight of the security agencies which would be empowered by this legislation.
I trust appropriate amendment will be made before passage to correct this legislation, and to render it acceptable in a fully-democratic society.
Yours very sincerely,
copy: MP John Duncan
121 East Block
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
The Hon Stephen Harper,
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Dear Sir,
I am deeply worried that Bill C51, currently before Parliament, goes well beyond the intentions stated by the government.
I refer you to the articles by a number of very knowledgeable people, including legal and parliamentary experts, who have made this point before me.
And I am old enough to remember the RCMP, acting under similarly-vague authorization to that envisioned by this bill, illegally burning down a Quebec barn belonging to a relative of an FLQ member.
I thought we had learned from that experience.
It is also very worrying that there appears to be no effective oversight of the security agencies which would be empowered by this legislation.
I trust appropriate amendment will be made before passage to correct this legislation, and to render it acceptable in a fully-democratic society.
Yours very sincerely,
copy: MP John Duncan
121 East Block
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Friday, January 23, 2015
On Just Havelaar, by Mike Rooksby
Mike Rooksby, initially my father's Oak Bay High School colleague and subsequently his long-term friend, wrote the following appreciation in reaction to his death on December 13, 2014, aged 99:
Justus, my ancient friend
It’s
the first Oak Bay staff meeting in 1969 and he, along with other
teachers new to the school, has been introduced. He is an
interesting-looking man, tall and thin with an unusual accent that I
can’t quite place; my accent is also commented upon regularly so I feel
free to ask him about it. Dutch, my goodness, and teaching English?? On
subsequent occasions, at staff meetings or elsewhere, there was always
something interesting going on behind those eyes and his opinions on
educational matters were often quite different from mine. And yet I did
not feel any animosity, rather returned interest, and soon I started to
listen more carefully to this man. I started to realise that the
teaching of Math and that of English were very different matters,
different skills for both students and teachers, and also that my
approach to things in general was not the only valid one. He was
patient, but resilient and even insistent; in spite of the 24-year
difference in our ages, we discovered other mutual interests in woodwork
and the natural world and, on going to visit him at his house, I made
the acquaintance of the remarkable woman who was his wife. Once, while I
was there, we used a canoe, I think, to tow a large log into the
channel from Portage inlet that was behind the house, for cutting into
firewood. He was also proud of the prodigious rhubarb that grew where
the septic field outlet emptied, and showed off the huge jade plant that
flowered and that had come with them from Terrace. Later, with my
family, we would go on walks in Thetis Lake Park or by Esquimalt lagoon,
and Hanneke would make her delicious mushrooms-in-sauce-on-toast to
warm us up, a concoction I have sometimes tried to make but never
replicated.
There
would always be a project on the go, or plans for one; over the years I
learned a myriad of skills, from the need for SHARP tools (that was a
tough lesson where his patience wore thin because of my incompetence) to
the tried and true ‘mend and make do’ philosophy which extended to all
aspects of his practical life ( later there was the ‘famous’ replacement
of a broken metal part of a Felco Pruner with an oak one; it did not
last long, but the very idea I found amazing) . He impressed upon me the
importance of using hand tools respectfully, of drawing out a plan
beforehand (though later in his woodworking life that particular aspect
appeared to take a back seat, or sometimes no seat at all). He taught me
about joints and glues, grain and texture and numerous techniques which
were of interest even when I couldn’t conceive of ever using them. His
practicality, however, did not extend to cars, of which there were a
number of highly doubtful choices that came to unseemly ends, but he was
not interested in them, instead getting annoyed if they did not work.
There was one occasion when he needed to borrow my TR4A sports car to go
home for something forgotten, I think, and he phoned me in a panic
because he could not get the handbrake off. It was a special kind called
a ‘racing’ handbrake, for which the end knob that is generally pushed
in to release it worked in reverse mode, so that to release it all you
had to do was pull on the handle; the knob was pushed in when you wanted
it ‘on’. He told me many times that it was a “stupid” design!
Over
the years he shared with me many stories from his early days as well as
later ones, always belittling his own contributions and extolling
Hanneke’s; the stories about coming to Terrace by train, of his early
jobs, of times without a job, of their transfer to Vancouver Island,
Hornby, UVic and then Kingham Place are all recounted in his memoirs,
but I remember being so impressed at how he and Hanneke could be so very
different in so many ways, and yet still be absolutely devoted to each
other. There was never the slightest doubt as to the solidity of their
marriage and the pride they took in each other and their family. It is
hard to imagine the courage it took to be married and start a family
under those so difficult times of war and post-war Holland, and then to
take their family to a far-off country with no prospect of returning for
a long time. He told me that the two of them had promised each other
that, once they were in Canada, they would speak only English to each
other so as to assimilate more quickly and learn the nuances of the
language, and indeed I never heard them speaking Dutch unless on the
phone to their relatives in Holland.
And
then there was the laughter. Always there was this effort on both our
parts to get each other’s goat, resulting in all kinds of jokes and
loudness that I think both our wives found somewhat raucous and uncouth.
His views on things were always well-articulated and rational so it was
sometimes hard to find an angle to argue, but we generally found
conversation a wonderful fresh-air experience and it all helped me find
my own ‘voice’ on important matters. And that is the crux of what the
real influence of Justus on me was: he forced me to think about what I
said before I said it, to question every assumption that I was making
and to examine all I said for flawed reason. It was, too, always a
joyful and exhilarating experience, often ending with trivial issues or
discussions about woodworking or boats or music. He so enjoyed
‘intellectual’ banter.
You,
to whom I am writing this, know him better than I, of course, so I am
unlikely to bring anything new to your knowledge. I thought, however,
that you might like to hear what an ‘outsider’ had to say; I can barely
scratch the surface of who he was, only express what he meant to me and
to Susie and my children. It was he who told me about the piece of
property along Piercy Road that we eventually bought, that proved such a
wonderful place for us and our kids for holidays. It was he who got me
going to the discussions about ‘left’ and ‘right’ schools in Victoria
and made me think about elementary schooling. It was he (and Hanneke, of
course) who showed many people what standing up for their beliefs meant
to him in all kinds of situations (not just Clayaquot and Strathcona).
But it was all melded into a mix of humour, genuine liking for each
other and for the battles of the mind, and a trust that was paramount to
all his dealings with everyone he knew. He probably knew neither how to
lie, nor even contemplate it.
He
had no time for sport of any kind, nor for other ‘games’. He loved
classical music and he played his flute with delight even if his skills
were not those of his beloved brother Charles. I can recall many times
picking him up from their Denman house in the morning for our walk with
the dog, having to pull him out of the cabin at the bottom of the garden
from his practice.
In
the last phase of his life he was, of course, gradually declining in
many ways, and yet in spite of Michelle’s more recent arrival in my life
he always - till the end - remembered her name and who she was and
never made a mistake; he always reminded me to give her his love if she
were not there. I am so glad I saw him not a month before he died; he
was still good to visit even if the conversation was at a different
level; probably mine is too.
My
friend Justus: a man of passion and integrity, devotion and
determination, whose love for his family always came first in every
way.
Michael Rooksby
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
