Water

The effect of global warming is to reduce levels of inland fresh water lakes (due to evaporation) and to raise sea levels (due to melting ice caps). At some point we are going to have to adapt to this by diverting increasing amounts of fresh water that would otherwise flow into the sea. It isn't possible not to. There will be all kinds of justifiable NIMBY reactions but they will never be able to do more than slow the process.

Canadians are up in arms about the possibility of the US siphoning off Canadian water. We rail about "bulk water exports", but in reality the US doesn't have to buy the water: they have their own coast lines on the Great Lakes, St Lawrence River, Red River, and so on. All they have to do is divert water in their own territory. In fact, the current low level of Lake Huron may be partly due to dredging in the St Clair River (which has caused erosion that further deepens the river) that is estimated to be causing an extra outflow of 10 billion liters/day.

How we take the water will make all the difference. Obviously, diverting it closer to the sea causes less havoc on communities than taking it in the middle of the continent. But it seems likely that the Great Lakes, with 20% of the world's fresh water, are going to be hit.

The problem with the Great Lakes is that they are not replenished as a river is. About 99% of water in the Great Lakes is a leftover from the last ice age and is non-renewable. Also, the water level goes through periodic up and down cycles, and it isn't known whether the current low levels are temporary or part of a global warming trend.

I live right in the center of the Great Lakes, and for decades we have been exceedingly careful about water usage. It has been ages since you could buy anything but a low-flow toilet in Ontario. In my region residents are only allowed to water their yards or wash their cars one evening a week, after 7 PM. By-law officers enforce the law and hand out fines. By mid-summer most lawns are dormant (brown and dry).

It is therefore not unexpected that southern Ontarians are pretty unhappy about the prospect of the US siphoning off water to US communities - some of them in southern deserts - that do not do much to conserve water. But restricting siphoning is a double-edged sword, and will hurt us too.

Waterloo has plans to build a pipeline from Lake Huron to supply our community with water. Recent concerns about lake levels are raising questions about whether any new pipelines should be allowed. We are already operating with minimal amounts of water. If the new reality means that our pipeline might not happen, we had better adjust our growth rates soon so that we don't get into a godawful mess.

Update: Drought-Stricken South Facing Tough Choices

###

On elections and by-elections

I recorded the Ontario provincial leader's debate tonight and just finished watching it. The experience was painful.

John Tory is of the old attack dog school, nasty and belligerent. His opening film referred to "Dalton McGuinty's catch-and-release justice system." Later he said that "McGuinty is letting criminals thumb their noses at us." His passion for sending people to jail is the thing that bothers me most about him, of a long list of things that bother me: teaching creationism in schools, shattering our public school system, weakening our public health system.

Howard Hampton was better than I expected. I agree with his values but I'm not always certain of his facts. But I shouldn't quibble: he was in a tough position as the party that's trailing way back and he stood up well.

I thought Dalton McGuinty was fabulous - the hand's down winner, partly because he was clear, fact-based and convincing, partly because he stood up to all the mudslinging with composure (and a good answer to every attck) - but mostly because he stood up for his record, which has been very good. When he came in he discovered a $6 billion deficit left by the Conservatives; he has turned the deficit into a massive surplus. He has made huge inroads on our problematic school system and health system.

McGuinty is not a big-charisma politician, but he's a good man with good values and he is a solid manager who is running our province excellently.

I wish I felt as good about our federal Liberal leader. I don't think Dion should be ousted because of the by-election losses in Quebec, but it's a canary in the coal mine for his leadership.

For whatever reason, Dion has been unable to be an effective, vocal opposition to Harper. He doesn't need inexperienced lieutenants like Hall-Findlay, Ignatieff and Kennedy. He needs to start developing some federal leadership-level political smarts. In the leadership race Dion ran on a platform of being the antiestablishment candidate (pretty laughable since he had been in cabinet and the other top candidates were outsiders). Maybe he needs to eat a little crow and call in the backroom boys who can get us moving again... pure speculation as I have no idea what's going on in his office, but something has to change.

Dion's political voice comes off (in English) as either whiny or angry: he needs to find a better tone. He needs to get on top of some issues that Canadians care about. He needs to start showing Canadians a Liberal leadership team that we can imagine running our country - Ignatieff and Hall-Finlay are getting too much exposure when they're not ready for prime time.

Since many Canadians are still angry about the Liberal adscam scandal (and Dion as leader perpetuates the problem since he was a Quebec cabinet minister at the time of the fraud), maybe it would help if he unveiled new initiatives to reduce government corruption. And he shouldn't just be whining about the environment: he should be out there making concrete things happen and taking credit for improvements.

We knew in the leadership race that Dion was very unpopular in Quebec. Since the by-election he has been announcing that he's going to address that. But he's not going to win the next election unless he addresses his unpopularity in the rest of Canada. He's a non-entity. He needs to improve his English. He needs to get out into the rest of Canada and start doing things. More pandering to Quebec is not going to impress the voters who will decide the next election.

We Liberals have not had the best leadership for a long time. Chretien and Martin both had their strengths, but a gazillion weaknesses too. Dion came in as the reform candidate - the leader who was going to rebuild the party, energize the grass roots, modernize the system. I just don't see anything happening. One thing's for sure: if Dion doesn't figure out how to be leader, Harper is going to get his majority next time.

###

The Thing About Food

Everything I used to know about produce has changed.

...Strawberries are better when they're small. Wild blueberries have more flavor than cultivated ones. Corn has to be fresh and in season to be sweet. Only the first harvest of figs is good; the September harvest is not sweet. Bananas are flavorless yellow things. Watermelon tastes like water.

None of those things are true anymore. It seems that the agriculture industry found out that taste matters to consumers... et voila! They created more tasty fruits and vegetables.

This is so recent it seems like a miracle. When I returned from living in Africa ten years ago, the difference in taste between the food I ate in the tropics and the food I could buy in Canadian grocery stores was like the difference between caramel and glue. That's all changed. I guess it's the miracle of capitalism.

The Greenspan Argument: Why Sadaam Hussein Had to Go

In his recent book The Age of Turbulence, former US Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan writes that oil was the reason for invading Iraq. I have questioned this notion, largely based on Gwynne Dyer's argument that it is against all countries' interests to disrupt the oil supply. But Greenspan is, at first blush, pretty convincing. Here's his argument, as passed on to Bob Woodward in an interview:

It was looking like Sadaam was going to be able to take control of the Straits of Hormuz, through which up to 19 million barrels of oil pass daily. Had he achieved this, Sadaam could have disrupted world oil supplies. Greenspan says that if Sadaam were able to disrupt as little as 3 million barrels a day, he could have caused prices to jump dramatically - easily to $120/barrel. If he had disrupted more than that, he could have caused chaos in the global economy.

Is this true? If it is, then history might judge that Bush did the right thing to unseat Sadaam. (I'm not saying that he was justified in invading and occupying the country - there is no justification for killing 650,000 people and turning 4 million into refugees.)

I have some doubts about Greenspan's argument.

Greenspan isn't explicitly trying to explain Bush's motivation: he is explaining his own reasons for thinking that something had to be done about Sadaam. If Bush's rationale for war had anything to do with the Straits of Hormuz, then he surely would have used it, given his kitchen-sink approach to justifying his war (WMD, human rights, regional stability, terrorism, al Quaeda, ...)

Also, Greenspan should be more explicit that such a move on Sadaam's part would cause short-term problems, not long-term ones, because if he had taken over the Straits of Hormuz there would have been a broad-based coalition of countries, including all oil-producing states whose oil business was disrupted, ready to take immediate military action to take back the Straits. In fact, had Sadaam been left in place to make such a bold move, it would probably have been fairly easy to depose him without bombing and occupying the entire country.

Update: Gwynne Dyer rebuts Greenspan here.

###

US Health Care

One thing that bugs me about the universal health care debate in the US is the assumption on the part of many of the participants that the Canadian system is no good and should not be considered.

This, I believe, is due to a PR campaign by the health care industry in the US to discredit the Canadian system. Or better put, the Canadian system got trashed as part of the attempt to discredit universal health care in general.

It's true that Canadians love to complain about their health care. Health care could always be better, and there was a period of a few years when we had significant problems with wait times.

But our metrics are good. Canada beats the US on key indicators such as infant mortality and expected lifespan. Canadian women are not more likely to die of breast cancer than Americans, even when the wait time for a surgical procedure was a little longer. And while the Canadian system is much cheaper to run, the Canadian system is also more extravagant: Canadian hospitals tend to be cleaner, resulting in less superbugs and other side-effects of hospital stays; after-care is better; and so on.

The problems with the Clinton and Edwards plans are that (as far as I can see) they don't address two main areas.

(1) They don't address the issue of incredible inefficiency in the current US system, caused by too many profit-takers and too much red tape. Health care costs in the US aren't just a little higher than Canada: they're astronomically, mindboggingly higher. There is an impending crisis due to the retirement of baby boomers, but it is not due to inadequate funds in Social Security: it is how Medicare will be able to fund the health needs of retiring boomers at the current high cost of medical care.

(2) They don't address the issue of putting too many life-and-death decisions in the hands of people whose jobs are to cut costs. I have a cousin who was nearly denied a life-saving transplant because she was considered too ill to survive it (that was 10 years ago, and she's doing very well).

I can see that the US is never going to accept a fully socialized health care system. But a modified Canadian system - government-funded health care for all with the addition of private pay-as-you-go clinics - seems to be the ideal choice for the US. That is essentially what we have currently in Canada, because 95% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the border.

###

Planting Trees

I was out yesterday picking chestnuts from beneath healthy trees. Then I spent the evening peeling off the green shell to get to the brown seeds beneath. I got about 200 and today I'm going to plant them in bare areas in my community, along with other seeds I've gathered: wild apples, sumac, wild rose bushes, perennial flowers.

I had been thinking of buying saplings to plant. There were various reasons for not doing this. I live in an apartment and have no place to store them. It's a hassle to get permission to plant trees. Transplanted trees have a lower survival rate. Plus, I want to plant a lot and do not have much of a budget or manpower. All I'm investing is a couple of weekends and a few bags of composted manure.

I know that chestnuts grow well from seed because I used to live next to a chestnut tree and squirrels were constantly burying them in my flower beds. Some species of chestnut do not do well in clay soil and this is a clay-based area. I will seek out sandy soil but chestnuts may just not be the best choice. On the other hand, global warming is changing the dynamics of tree survival.

Wild apples seem to grow everywhere and again, my squirrel experience assures me that you can plant an apple and get a tree.

Sumac is supposed to be slow to germinate so I won't worry if I don't see plants next year. I don't know what to expect from the wild rose seeds: my rose bushes never reseeded themselves. Also, roses may require better soil than I will be able to find.

The key to guerilla community gardening is to plant hardy, drought-resistant varieties that can survive in the place you plant them. It's easy enough to get the information you need on the internet; or just choose something that is already growing wild on its own.

###

Humpty Dumpty Iraq

A year ago, the Lancet medical journal estimated that 650,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the US invasion. The number of documented civilian deaths due to violence since the invasion is 75,000. In addition, the United Nations estimates that there are over 4 million Iraqi refugees (including, this summer, the author of Baghdad Burning). The violence is only getting worse, and the violence is all about opposition to the US occupation.

There is no hope of creating a centralized Iraq without the long-term presence of US troops - probably for decades - and the price of doing that is too high. It is morally indefensible to perpetuate this level of hardship on the Iraqi people. There seems to be only one workable exit strategy: the US must give up on the attempt to put back together what it destroyed. Iraq must be divided up - like Bosnia - into its ethnic parts. (In fact, effectively, this has already happened.)

Dividing up Iraq causes all sorts of problems. Turkey has problems with the idea of an Iraqi Kurdish state. Iran may have an easier time taking over the Shi'ite part of Iraq (and since Iran and Iraq warred over territory for decades, we can assume that Iran wants to do this). The small nation-states that Iraq will become may war. The creation of Sunni, Shia and Kurdish states may contribute to regional factionalism and instability. There is the issue of stability of oil production. And loads of other big issues.

Once we accept that Iraq cannot be put back together again, we can begin to start focusing on how to meet these challenges, and stop the unrealistic focus on how to both withdraw US troops and maintain a centralized Iraq.

The US needs to also stop the rhetoric that the problem is not getting fixed because the Iraqi congress takes a 4-week holiday or Maliki is not serious. This mess is not the fault of the Iraqis, and at this point they are largely powerless to fix it. It is not the fault of Iran or the Arab states: in fact they all officially told the US not to invade Iraq. This mess is 100% the fault of the US, and the inability to fix it is 100% the fault of Bush insisting on the unrealistic goal of creating a unified Iraq (as he did again in his presidential address last week).

As I have argued before, what is needed is a Truth & Reconciliation commission in the US, similar to what was done in South Africa after the dismantling of apartheid. The US needs to assure itself and the world that it will never commit such an atrocity again.

###

We Need Censorship

These days, mainstream North America seems to believe that censorship is always bad, that adult pornography is perfectly legitimate, and that the only real problem with porn sites is that they may leave annoying cookies on your computer. Do you agree? If so, do me a favor: go to google and type porn bondage. Open the first site in the long list, which I think will be yobt. Take a long look at what's there.

If you look through the links on this site you'll see things that will give you nightmares. Some of it, like the blood and whip marks, may be make-up. Some of it, like the electrodes attached to genitals, is probably fake. But some of it is not fake: the lack of blood circulation, distended orifices and objects stuck inside the women. These women are not into pain and humiliation: in real bondage, the person being dominated is asking/paying to have it done and has a safe word to make it stop. These women are porn models who are being posed, and being hurt while the filming is done. And it's part of a mainstream, huge porn site, used by millions of men.

When I saw this site, my first thought was to call the RCMP and report it. But as far as I can tell it's completely legal to do this to women as long as they're adult. In a few minutes of clicking I found dozens of similar sites, and yet I have never heard a peep of criticism about it - in the media, from friends, on other blogs. Think of the outrage if a horse is shot in a movie, and there is no notice assuring us that "no animals were harmed in the making of this film." I have even seen movies say that no insects were harmed.

The damage is not limited to the women. The men who look at this stuff are also being desensitized. I don't know much about pornography, but I suspect that men who look at softer porn that humiliates and degrades the models are led slowly to the hardcore stuff.

I'm not saying that we should go back to the days when Robert Mapplethorpe exhibits were raided. But we need to apply some tougher legal standards to adult pornography. We need to start acknowledging that it has harmful effects on the workers in the industry. If we didn't have laws, poor people might do all sorts of things for money that caused them harm, like sell their internal organs. Pornography has become a sacred cow and that needs to stop.

It's true that it would be difficult to get this stuff off the internet. It's tough enough to track down the creators of child pornography. But we're miles away from trying to stop this hardcore porn: we're still at the stage of saying there's nothing wrong with it. That complacency hurts our children and our culture.

###

He Rises to Slime Again

As I write I'm watching Brian Mulroney's interview on CTV that coincides with the release of his memoirs.

Some things have changed since Mulroney's tenure as Canadian Prime Minister. He is apparently no longer hopped up on Nyquil - while he's still smarmy, he no longer has the careful enunciation and telltale slur of one slightly drunk.

But the slimey lies are still there. He just decried his opponents for getting upset with him for singing on stage with Ronald Reagan, saying that the "loopy left" was crazy to criticize - totally ignoring the fact that we weren't objecting to the song, we were objecting to his sucking up to the American right and acting against Canadian interests.

He argued at some length that former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, whom he obviously hates, had no moral authority in Canada and had no right to be a leader. He implied that Trudeau was anti-Semitic and even pro-Nazi.

The character assassination continues with Lucien Bouchard, and since I'm no fan of Bouchard I don't care to dredge up the details, but I don't believe a thing Mulroney says. He's a bald-faced liar, a prime-time sleeze. His legacy is that he did such an execrable job as Prime Minister that he destroyed his party.

And as to his own moral authority, I think Stevie Cameron settled that question in her book On the Take.

###

The Next Big Thing

It seems we are in the middle of a revolution in computing: the move from tethered communication to mobile. Worldwide, there are approximately four times as many mobile devices (mostly cell phones) as there are traditional laptops and desktops. And mobile devices are improving to an extent that they may make desktops and laptops as laughingly obsolete as rotary dial phones.

Consider the possibility of "a microbrowser in every pocket" for both personal and business use. Then think about the potential for embedded wireless applications. Our economy will be transformed. Wifi is a stopgap, but in the US the FCC is rumored to be considering the approval of new broadband networks that could make make wired and wireless internet nearly free.

The screen and keyboard on mobile devices are too small to be fully useful, you say? It's all being worked out. We've all seen the iPhone, but check out these new products from HTC - they're just as revolutionary.

These developments make it all the more urgent for the Canadian government to get off its butt and start doing something about the pitiful state of Canada's wireless service provider industry. At this point in time, lagging behind Rwanda is not going to cut it.

Update: PCs Being Pushed Aside in Japan

###

Why Canada Has the Highest Wireless Costs

A few months ago this graph was published in an article called Canada Worse than 3rd World Countries when it comes to Mobile Data Access. It compares the cost of transferring 500MB of data in several wireless plans. The Comments quibble over the details, but the upshot is that Canadian wireless plans are way more expensive than other countries - and Canadian wireless prices are rising sharply. (Here's a similar graph comparing 1GB of data.)

Don Morrison, COO of RIM (the Waterloo-based maker of the BlackBerry), tells a similar story: Canadian wireless plans are too expensive, and the cost is only hurting wireless service providers by keeping national adoption relatively low.

The situation affects my company as well. Also based in Waterloo, we develop database and synchronization software for developers of wireless applications. Like RIM, we don't do much business in Canada.

Why are Canadian wireless costs so high? These seem to be the contributing factors:

1. Bad business decisions by wireless service providers - bad in that they're hurting themselves as well as their customers.

2. Too little competition. There are three providers - Rogers (which owns Fido), Telus and Bell. And Telus and Bell share infrastructure.

3. Lack of regulation. For some reason, the CRTC doesn't regulate wireless services.

4. Population density. Our population density is 3.2 people/km^2. This is 1/10th the population density of the US, and nearly 1/100th Britain's. Low density isn't as important as it might seem, because 95% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US border and more than half live in our six biggest cities. Plus, once the infrastructure is in place, the providers could recoup their expenses better by attracting more customers. Also, Australia has a population density even lower than ours (2.6) and they have cheaper plans.

5. Canadians don't demand a better deal.

Update: Jake Billo

###

Traveler IQ Challenge

The Facebook game Traveler IQ Challenge was created by TravelPod, an Ottawa-based company that was acquired by TripAdvisor in late 2006. The game is fun, educational and thoroughly addictive. This post refers to the World challenge game, but there are other games as well (World Capitals, UNESCO sites, regional games, etc).

As far as I can tell the game is only available through Facebook. Here is the official statistics page from TravelPod. You might need a Facebook account to access the game here.

Details of the game
The game works like this: the name of a place pops up and you use your mouse to locate it on a map of the world. Your score is presented and then another name pops up... and so on. I play quite quickly and a game takes me 10-15 minutes. At the end you are presented with your final score. If you scroll down the page you'll see the top scores in the world, as well as the top scores of people in your friend list.

The game consists of 12 levels, each with a number of questions. Here's a game I played recently:

Level 1: Havana, Cuba; Venice, Italy; Brasilia, Brazil; Cape Town, South Africa; Houston, USA (5 questions)
Level 2: Versailles Palace, France; Tower of London, England; Sydney Opera House, Australia; Buckingham Palace, England; St. Paul's Cathedral, England; St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican City; Carlsbad Cavern, USA (7 questions)
Level 3: Paris, France; Cairo, Egypt; Helsinki, Finland; Rejkjavik, Iceland; Mexico City, Mexico; Montevideo, Uraguay; Sucre, Bolivia (7 questions)
Level 4: Antwerp, Belgium; Baltimore, USA; Philadelphia, USA; Kyoto, Japan; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Marseilles, France; Anaheim, USA; Jacksonville, USA; Oslo, Norway; Istanbul, Turkey (10 questions)
Level 5: Battle of Hastings, England; Xel-Ha (Mayan Ruins), Mexico; Oriental Pearl Tower, China; Mount Everest, Nepal; Uluru (Ayers Rock), Australia; Battle of Stalingrad (1942-3), Russia; Leptis Magna, Libya; Hagia Sophia, Turkey; Rapa Nui (Easter Island); The Alhambra, Spain (10 questions)
Level 6: Manila, Phillipines; San Jose, Costa Rica; Kyiv, Ukraine; Asuncion, Paraguay; Kabul, Afghanistan; Bangkok, Thailand; Freetown, Sierra Leone; Paramaribo, Suriname; Pretoria, South Africa; Santa Domingo, Dominican Republic (10 questions)
Level 7: Calcutta, India; Belo Horizonte, Brazil; Caracas, Venezuela; Cinque Terre, Italy; Santiago, Chile; Osaka, Japan; Ho Chi Minh City, Japan; Myrtle Beach, USA; Killarney, Ireland; Puerto Vallarta, Mexico; Dusseldorf, Germany; Hanoi, Viet Nam (12 questions)
Level 8: Luanda, Angola; Kigali, Rwanda; Maseru, Lesotho; Astana, Kazakhstan; Tbilisi, Georgia; Vilnius, Lithuania; Kuwait City, Kuwait; Mogadishu, Somalia; Djibouti, Djibouti; Sofia, Bulgaria; Manama, Bahrain; Tegucigalpa, Honduras (12 questions)
Level 9: Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt; Kathmandu, Nepal; Columbo, Sri Lanka; Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire; Guangzhou, China; Mumbai (Bombay), India; Hamilton, Bermuda; Vientiane, Laos; Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea; Queenstown, New Zealand; Ubud, Indonesia; Kandahar, Afghanistan (12 questions)
Level 10: Thimphu, Bhutan; Niamey, Niger; Muscat, Oman; Palikir, Federated States of Micronesia; Honiara, Solomon Islands; Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia; Bangui, Central African Republic; Mbabane, Swaziland; Podgorica, Montenegro; Zagreb, Croatia; N'Djamena, Chad; Port Louis, Mauritius; Basselerre, St. Kitts and Nevis; Maputo, Mozambique; Brazzaville, Republic of Congo (15 questions)
Level 11: Christmas Island, Australia; Nundle, Australia; Yekaterinaberg, Russia; Daugavpils, Latvia; Pagan Island, Northern Marianes; Ushuaia, Argentina; Bam, Iran; Tigre, Argentina; Iqaluit, Canada; Luang Prabang, Laos; Cluj-Napoca, Romania; Naxcivan, Azerbaijan; Yogyakarta, Indonesia; Port Arthur, Australia; Mancora, Peru (15 questions)
Level 12: Urumqi, China; Koror City, Palau; Ittoqqortoormiit, Greenland; Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia; Larak Island, Iran; Brasov, Romania; Yellowknife, Canada; Kimberly, South Africa; Tikrit, Iran; Al Khurtum, Sudan; Ventspils, Latvia; Omsk, Russia; Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Russia; Wangerooge, Germany; Val-d'Or, Canada (15 questions)

Total = 130 questions

The game isn't impossibly difficult because there seem to be only about 300 places that are used so it's possible to memorize them by repeated playing. Also, some countries are more highly represented than others (especially the US, Canada, Italy, England and Australia). For example, the only places it might ask you about in Canada are the Bay of Fundy, Calgary, the CN Tower, Edmonton, Iqaluit, Montreal, Niagara Falls, Ottawa, Portage au Prairie, Quebec City, Toronto, Val d'Or, Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Yellowknife. There are seven places in Norway, about two dozen in Australia, about a dozen in Italy... in most countries there are is only one, or in bigger countries two. There are some islands that are a bit tricky to pin down, but the only one that is still buggering me up is Easter Island, which doesn't come up very frequently.

Improving your score
When you start World IQ Challenge the splashscreen says that speed matters. However, the points you get from time are much, much less than the points you get from accuracy.

The following graphics give you an idea of how to score high points. The first graphic shows a very high score: I clicked within 28 kilometers of the target in 1.55 seconds. (The red arrow shows you where you clicked; the green arrow is the correct location.) It's difficult to do much better than this:
















The next graphic shows that it is much better to take an extra second or two to perfect your accuracy. I was almost as quick (1.71 seconds), but I was 800 kilometers off. That cost me 1,543 points for accuracy and 8 points for time:
















My top score for a game is 631,067. Since there are 130 questions, that works out to an average of 4,854 points per question. I could definitely improve my score. I am still a bit sloppy - I frequently do something stupid like click in Spain when I mean France, or (worse) in Australia when I mean China. (This happens because the world map is quite small.) Also, while I started the game with a good grasp of countries I am still building my city knowledge, especially in China and Russia. And I have to figure out how to be more accurate with spots that have no easy reference points - like the middle of the south Pacific (I can get close, but close might be 1,000 kilometers).

I found that decreasing the resolution on my monitor (making the map bigger) gave my score a boost. I also got a better score when I learned to slow down; in particular, after clicking on a location I pause, read the score and make careful note of the green flag that shows the correct location.

World Challenge IQ shows the top 25 scores in the world. (When you open the game, scroll down and you'll see the list.) The top score is 702,629, which averages 5,405 points per question. That is close to perfection. It would require getting less than 20 kilometers from every location in less than 2 seconds... not bad.

For another good (but simpler) map game, see Map Game.

The Challenges Facing North America

The creation of the Free Trade Agreement and later NAFTA was a reaction to underlying structural integration that occurred without government involvement. Leading up to free trade, US companies that had once had Canadian branch plants and then Canadian subsidiaries were moving to an integrated US-Canada corporate model. Since the free trade agreement structural integration has continued to grow, notably in supply chains. For example, the power supply in the US and Canada is more integrated even than in Europe; and railroads and other freight haulage now have a north-south orientation, rather than east-west.

NAFTA brought trade laws up to date with business reality, but it failed to create institutions that could provide a vision for our future. We face a bunch of major issues that we are currently unequipped, as a continent, to face. These include:

* security issues
* environmental issues
* energy issues
* transportation issues
* planning infrastructure such as more deep ports to trade with Asia

Another area in which North American trade cooperation is failing miserably is the nuts-and-bolts details of commerce. The Globe & Mail had a front-page article last week about the hurdles facing a maker of jelly beans: for example, the US and Canada have different regulations about the font used for nutritional information, so they have to spend a lot of extra money producing two sets of packaging that is otherwise identical.

The need for institutional infrastructure to deal with our existence as a continent includes the need for a voice for groups other than business and government. Even academics are mostly left out of current free trade talks, much less NGOs and other community groups.

Having wider input will help the mainstream business and government interests as well as make the whole process more productive. It would also avert dangers (such as the poor southern Mexicans who are not being helped by NAFTA and in consequence are becoming more nationalistic).

In terms of business regulations, the US is taking the lead and setting standards on its own. Canada's lagging on the regulatory front is hurting us economically - many corporations (including banks, CN Rail and other service companies) have moved their headquarters to the US to be closer to the effective regulators. Countries in Europe don't have this problem because they don't have one dominant market and they have a say in multilateral discussions via the EU.

In all the areas I mention above, the US will forge ahead on its own if Canada and Mexico don't find a way to more effectively influence the process. A full tripartite effort in all of those areas will benefit the US more than a unilateral approach. For example, the US focuses on its porous southern border, but perhaps more importantly it should be worried about Mexico's porous southern border and what threats might emerge from it.

The recent talks in Montebello were part of an ongoing, inadequate process for dealing with our common economic and security issues (see the Security and Prosperity Partnership). We need to do so much more. I recently heard Stephen Blank argue that mayors should take up the challenge and forge tri-country discussion groups; while mayors don't have a legislative mandate they are very influential. Others have argued that we need an annual forum of all federally elected representatives in the three countries.

I hate to say it (since that ship, apparently, has sailed) but what we need is Bob Rae to run our country and bring his intelligence and vision to forge a new continental relationship. Compare the EU to North American free trade and our inadequacy is especially apparent. There are issues of huge importance to all citizens of North America that we just aren't dealing with.

(Some of this information is from a recent panel discussion at CIGI involving Ginny Dybenko, Daniel Schwanen, Stephen Blank and Duncan Wood.)

###

Are you sleeping, Hagen my son?

I'm a big fan of Wagner's Ring Cycle, and if I had to pick one moment in the 17-hour, four opera marathon to call my favorite, it would be the weird, creepy conversation between Alberich and his son Hagen in the final opera, Gotterdammerung.

Alberich (a powerful dwarf from deep in the earth) and Wotan (the chief of the Norse gods) are in a multi-generational battle to obtain the Ring of the Nibelung and gain ultimate power. They have both sired off-spring to unwittingly act as their agents. Alberich's son is Hagen, and one night while Hagen is sleeping Alberich creeps up to him to give him instructions. Hagen is not in a natural sleep. He answers Alberich, and in his sleep he promises to steal the ring for his father. Several times during the conversation Alberich asks, "Are you sleeping, Hagen my son?" (Schlafst du, Hagen mein Sohn?)

The father-son conversation (with beautiful bass/baritone singing) has a languorous, almost lullabye aspect, except that the father is making his unconscious son swear to do monstrous acts. (Lack of free will is a recurring theme in Wagner, and in this case Alberich can beat Wotan because Alberich has the free will to make his son the tool of his bidding, while Wotan is constrained to let his offspring act freely.)

In the Ring Cycle, Wotan's agent (his grandson Siegfried) is powerful because he is fearless. But Alberich's agent, his son Hagen, is powerful because of his hatred. In the end hatred beats fearlessness, but hatred also kills itself. Hagen literally stabs Siegfried in the back, but the result is that the ring is lost to Alberich forever. in addition Valhalla burns and there are no gods left to replace it, so the next era of history begins.

I was thinking of all this while reading James Benjamin over at Left End of the Dial v2.0; he has written a series of posts about Dolchstosslegende as practiced by supporters of the Bush government. The Dolchstosslegende propaganda technique was used in Germany during its two world wars and deliberately references the legends Wagner based the Ring Cycle on. It blames failure in war on a populace that is insufficiently patriotic: it implies that the government, like the hero Siegfried, has been stabbed in the back by factions that questioned government policies for their own ends.

I think we're all aware that Dolchstosslegende has been a big part of the Bush spin about the US invasion of Iraq. There has been nothing subtle about it. (Benjamin's posts are still well worth reading.) The Bush government feels that it has been stabbed in the back by Democrats who have questioned its policies. It alleges that the troops have been stabbed in the back by anti-war protestors. Debate is reduced to the unproductive question: Who is a patriot and who is a traitor?

Dolchstosslegende propaganda can only reference the legends Wagner based his tale on, and not the Ring Cycle itself, because Wagner (for whom the term "moral ambiguity" was coined) paints a much less black-and-white picture of the back-stabbers and the back-stabbed. None of that directly applies to the Bush use of the propaganda technique... except in that Bush is unwittingly referencing the end of World War 2 and the new world that never would have emerged without it, and similarly is referencing the result of the fall of Valhalla - the rise of humanity. The Wagnerian conclusion may be that our only hope is the fall of Superpower-America and the beginning of the next era.

###

Sub-Prime

The crash of the sub-prime lending market (due to loan defaults that by definition should have been expected) is being spun in the US as just another case of greedy people wanting to live above their means and rapacious lenders who dangled the carrot and enticed them into financial ruin.

The Globe & Mail presented a rather different case history last week in its front-page article about an American widow who lives on Social Security. When she got sick and needed $50,000 for medical bills, her only choice (besides dying) was to take out a sub-prime mortgage on her house. Now she has defaulted.

Of course sub-prime mortgages have been around for a long time, and exist in Canada (to a much smaller extent), but the sub-prime crisis going on now is brought on by a new kind of mortgage that was introduced (or at least took off) in the US in 2004, and might more accurately be called "predatory sub-prime mortgages." This new type of mortgage is not just targeted at low-income borrowers, but also has a gimmick to get people to sign up: an initial period in which the borrower makes reduced payments. (This might be caused by a temporarily reduced interest rate or by not having to pay towards the principal for the first few years.) Unless their income rises by the time Part 2 of their repayment kicks in, borrowers are going to be in trouble.

As long as the housing bubble grew there was a certain logic to predatory mortgages. If I rent in an unregulated market and housing prices continue to rise, my rent will probably rise. If I buy a house I can stabilize my housing costs. My mortgage might be large, but if the value of my house continues to rise my debt-to-asset ratio declines. That sort of logic may be part of why so many people in the US (an estimated 20% of mortgage holders) took out predatory mortgages.

But when housing prices stop rising, when the insidious Part 2 of the predatory mortgage kicks in and your mortgage payments shoot up, when you've been making payments for a couple of years and now owe more than you did at the start - when the future is here and the extra money isn't in your pocket, then things don't work out so well.

It's all a lot like those late-night furniture ads that promise "No down payment! No interest until 2009!" It always struck me as ludicrous that someone would think that was actually a good deal, and yet those places are very popular. But in a world of high annual inflation (such as the housing market has been the last few years), buying now and paying later makes more sense.

This crisis brings back the farm crashes in the 1980s. If I recall correctly, farmers across North America had been courted by lenders to borrow money to buy expensive farm machinery. They were convinced by banks that small family farms couldn't be competitive unless they mechanized. Then interest rates went up and commodity prices fell, resulting in foreclosures. Agribusiness moved in and farming has changed forever.

It also brings to mind the burst of the high tech bubble a few years ago, which bit a lot of people badly. Before the crash, I remember reading in the business news that you were losing money if you didn't invest in high tech - the calculation went something like: a regular investment is paying 5% and investment in high tech is paying 30%, so if you put your money in regular investments you're losing 25%. We were led by the nose into losses.

I heard an anchor on CNN this week say that the collapse of the sub-prime market was completely unexpected. Of course this is completely false. In the last year there have been numerous media stories about the dangers of predatory loans. I saw one show last year that detailed exactly how the loans work, including predicting when the Part 2s would start to kick in (causing payments to rise). Pundits estimated exactly when the sub-prime market would collapse and their estimates turned out to be correct. (And for heaven's sake, Paul Krugman has been railing about the housing bubble for years.)

The reason we have a world-wide problem is that the sub-prime lenders sold the debt around the world. Why would anyone buy this dodgy sub-prime debt? Apparently part of the problem was that they didn't always know it was sub-prime. Mortgage lending is generally relatively low-risk, and hedge funds (which are notoriously untransparent) didn't spell out the details. But part of it must have been pure speculation: call it irresponsible investing or just plain gambling - with other people's money.

Should central banks have bailed out the speculators by lowering interest rates? On the one hand, I think of course they should, because a global financial crash will hurt all of us. On the other hand they keep bailing out the speculators (think 1998 when dodgy Russian debt collapsed) and the speculators know it.

Where are we now? Not at the end of the crisis, certainly. There will be more defaults (2 million are predicted) and this may cause a decline in housing prices. The impact on financial markets will continue, resulting in who-knows-what losses. And once the financial crisis has passed, there will be repercussions - possibly softer stock prices due to reduced trust in the markets, probably other things. If US consumer confidence falls too far, we could be in for another recession.

This is happening in a world in which fewer and fewer people have company pensions. We rely on the financial markets to invest for our retirement. (President Bush even tried to totally scrap Social Security and move all retirement funds into private self-directed investments.) We need credible and safe financial markets.

Governments need to act to devise far, far stronger financial regulations: on hedge funds, credit-rating agencies, banks, advertising, and a host of other areas. We need a financial press that does more investigative journalism. We need a public commitment on the part of central banks and financial market regulators to protect small-time investors. And the US should look at alternative ways to help the poor afford their own homes, such as a government mortgage corporation. (Bush has boasted that home ownership grew to 70% under his watch. He should put his money where his mouth is and help keep millions from being repossessed.)


###

China Bashing

Recently the news has been full of scary articles about recalls of products made in China. From toys for toddlers to dog food, the message is that China is so backward or corrupt that everything made there is suspect.

People who understand the world of cross-border manufacturing know that this news angle is rubbish. Matel, Fisher-Price and the other multinationals are responsible for providing detailed specs to manufacturing plants. The plants don't know the safety rules in the country the goods are shipped to; they might not even know where the goods are destined. The company that hires them is responsible for telling them exactly which paint to use - they can't just leave it up to the Chinese plant manager and hope he doesn't decide to use leaded paint. They can't just accept goods without testing. If they do, then it's their fault.

Maybe this is just another case of the media getting a story wrong. Coincidentally though, the US government seems obsessed with China as the only threat to American world supremacy. China is too strong, too robust economically, and too damn big. Whenever I hear a story that bashes China, I take a long breath and wonder who initiated it.

See also: Climate Wars

###

Some Thoughts on the Democratic Race

Hillary is suffering from front-runner syndrome: she's taking all the heat. She's standing up to it with strength and aplomb, so maybe that will catapult her into a win... or maybe it's a poor strategy based on her husband's success in taking a lot of hits early and becoming seemingly "teflon." It might backfire and leave her too scarred to continue. I heard a pundit recently refer to her as "a flawed candidate" as if she is heavily tarnished, and this seems to be a growing conventional wisdom.

(I keep saying this but I'll say it again: After we were hoodwinked on Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, it seems impossible that we could let ourselves be hoodwinked about another good Democratic candidate -- and yet we're letting it happen again with the lies and innuendo about Hillary. Is politics so partisan these days that we can never see things clearly - even in a primary? I'm not saying that there are no reasons to prefer another candidate over Hillary, but those reasons are invalid if they include sentiments that she's too "cold"; she's ugly; she's tainted by having a husband who had affairs; or she's a hypocrite because she changes her clothes or hair-do. There are also untrue claims that she supports the war in Iraq, is in the pockets of the lobbyists, and does not support universal health care. (If you read the comments on political columns on the Huffington Post or Washington Post web site, that about sums up opposition to Hillary.) If you're a Democrat and you oppose Hillary, then do some honest thinking and let us know what valid reasons you have for opposing her.)

And yet I can't ignore Obama's low negative ratings. I don't think you can just pass it off to being a newcomer with a brief public record. When there's an issue I'm puzzled by, I want to hear what Obama has to say. There's one thing that bothers me about Obama: sometimes when he's answering a question he has a little hint of a grin like he's about to stop mid-sentence and say, "Aw, I'm just kidding." Maybe they're all thinking that and the others just hide it better.

Edwards, in third place, is free to ignore the two frontrunners and take on the Right. He has taken on Anne Coulter, Fox News, the current administration, and probably a lot more that I haven't followed. He has got himself in the news by doing this and generated a lot of controversy (and criticism). I'm listening to the George Stephanopoulis Democratic primary debate as I write this, and Edwards has just entered a debate about how to end the war in Iraq by saying, "Any Democratic president will end the war in Iraq." He is taking an interestingly unifying role. He is also speaking out quite bravely to stand up for progressive issues like regulations that help citizens. I'm glad he's taking this course because it all needs to be said at this high level, but I'm not sure what his game is. Another run at VP? Staying out of the fray because his only hope is to have Hillary and Obama implode? Trying on something new because he doesn't want to just repeat the campaign of 2004? Or is it not pure strategy... perhaps in this, his second run at presidential candidate, with a wife whose cancer has returned, he is doing a Bullworth and using his candidate status to say what he thinks needs to be said. I'm not convinced that Edwards is the best candidate for president but I'm impressed as hell by him.

As to the other five candidates, all of whom are at 2% or less (at least in this Iowa debate), I'm puzzled. They are so vigilantly negative: a bunch of old men who want to tear down the system for their own political benefit. I wish they would go away.

And finally, the flies. I know Iowa is an agricultural state, but it's freaky watching the candidates try to ignore the flies that are crawling all over their heads.

###

Stardust (Review)... and associated thoughts

(No spoilers)

I mostly enjoyed the film Stardust, which stars Claire Danes, Charlie Cox, Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert De Niro. All the acting is very good. Most of all, this is my kind of movie. My heart's with Jules Verne, Ray Bradbury, JP Blaylock, Tim Powers and Tim Burton - people whose fantasies are primal battles that evoke nostalgic longing, who create adventures that include the Royal Academy of Science and dirigibles and 6" high elephants. There simply isn't enough of this type of fantasy, and it's hard to get right in film - Big Fish being a recent notable success and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen being a recent notable failure.

Part of the problem with Stardust may be the author who wrote the original novel. The only book I've read of Neil Gaiman's was American Gods and I found it derivative and unsatisfying. It was a Tim Powers book rewritten as an airport bestseller: it had all the trappings but it rang false. Stardust occasionally rings clangingly false as well, partly because of some glaring plot holes and partly due to some corny premises. (Writer/director Matthew Vaughn covers up some of it pretty well, but a star who falls from the sky and is rescued by a unicorn... c'mon guys.) Yet parts of the plot are charming, like pirates who fish for lightning in the clouds.

Another problem with Stardust is an issue of post-production: the music sucks. The music was hackneyed, overly manipulative, too loud and unpleasant to the ear. There were no subtleties like leitmotifs, just heart-pounding chase music and heart-warming romance music and other annoying movie cliches. That made me think how often it's happened to me in the last few years that bad music has soured a movie for me. It's like watching a sitcom that's funny but has an obnoxious laugh track. It's a mystery why so many films are meticulous about special effects but throw away the sound track. We have several powerhouse movie score composers these days, such as Howard Shore and Danny Elfman - it's a puzzle why so many movies (even good ones) have godawful annoying music. If they're going to be derivative, why not copy the film scores that work?

###

Noel Edison

When he who dreams the music rules the barn
"Come hither" fingers flutter his intent
And those who watch the dreamer, sing his song
Bring life to mind's imaginings again.

The sound that grows to fill the arching hall
Has currents deep and fast and transient
That warm not cool the inner core of life
And flow to places nothing else can find.

Four hundred creaking softly in the dark
Are we who watch the back of this event.
The sound sublime revives our tired souls
We dream the dream together in content.

###

Russell Braun (Review)

I fell in love with the lyric baritone of Russell Braun after hearing his Papageno in the Magic Flute at Opera Atelier in Toronto. That was in the early '90s. Soon after he moved on to the Canadian Opera Company and then to world opera stages, but he still holds recitals with his wife and accompanist, Carolyn Maule, in southern Ontario.

I have heard Braun sing recitals a few times and have always been bowled over. Tonight I heard him again in recital at the Elora Festival, singing with Noel Edison's Elora Festival Singers in the Gambrel Barn.

Braun is a master of technique, making sounds that sometimes seem impossible to make - impossible to do the breathing, impossible to have the range from light tenorish highs down down down to baritone, impossible to evoke the poignant tone, impossible to sing so softly, impossible to project so powerfully.

And yet the magic of his singing isn't really about technique - it's about the intelligence behind the words and the sensitivity of his phrasing. He brings lyrics to life in a way that most people just can't do. Tonight a highlight for me was his rendition of The Brown Girl (also a highlight of Carolyn Maule's beautiful piano playing). Here are the words that I found online, and I'm not sure that they're exactly what Braun sang. The sad regret in the last verse permeated his rendition.

The Brown Girl

When first to this country I came as a stranger
I placed my affection on a handsome young girl
She being young and tender, her waist slim and slender
She appeared like an angel or some gypsy queen.

On the banks of the river where first I beheld her
She appeared like an angel or some Grecian queen.
Her eyes shone like diamonds, her hair gently waving
Her cheeks bloomed like roses or blood on the snow.

It was your cruel father who caused this disturbance
He said you were of a higher degree.
But I am determined now all for to gain you
Though he says I belong to a low family.

She cries "Charming Johnny, don't be melancholy
There is never no other my favor will gain
There's no other creature will e'er gain my favor
On the banks of the Burborne, I'll wander with thee."

Since I have gained you, my bride I will make you
I'll put rings on your fingers and drops in your ears.
With diamonds and pearls I'll deck my brown girl
With all sorts of grandeur, I'll deck you my dear.

My name is Delaney, no blemish can shame me
I might have had riches had I stayed at home.
But drinking and gambling, night walking and courting
Was the cause of my ruin and absence from home.

###

Commander's Palace, New Orleans (Review)

I was in New Orleans in June for the first time since Katrina. The French Quarter is as lovely as ever but a lot of restaurants have not been able to hire their pre-Katrina quota of staff yet, and there were some slight glitches because of that: a young waiter at Antoine's who called my mother and I "you guys" repeatedly, restaurants that have had to remove time-consuming dishes from their menus, some restricted hours.

I enjoyed Antoine's (I had two starters - Bisque d'ecrevisses with a stuffed crawfish on top, followed by Chair de crabes ravigote; and then Cafe Brulot - it was a really good meal) and Sunday jazz brunch at Arnaud's (the band was more the highlight than the food, but the food was good) and Coop's Place (all I had time for was their superb gumbo and a beer). One afternoon I ran out of the rain into some touristy-looking place on Decatur and had great crab cakes - way better than a fancy restaurant would serve where I live.

But the gastronomic highlight of the trip was Commander's Palace. I had never been there before. I knew it was a serious restaurant so I didn't want to go there for lunch or brunch when the food would be cheap but less spectacular. We went for supper and ordered the tasting menu with the wine tasting menu. It was worth it! In fact, at $290 for two (including tax and a good tip), I thought it was very good value. (The seven course tasting menu was $70 and the wine tasting menu was an additional $35.) As a great restaurant should be, our meal was more than eating: it was theater. We each had the same menu. This is what we had:

Drinks: Bourbon milk punch for one; a glass of Viognier for the other. (In retrospect, ordering a pre-meal drink was a mistake, as the amount of wine in the tasting wine menu was very generous, and I was feeling very happy by the time we rolled out of there, hours later.)

Course 1: Shrimp and green chili ceviche. Shrimp, roasted chilis, mango, cilantro and lime, served with fried plantain. It was very good - not brilliant. Served with yummy champagne (Commander's Palace Cuvee).

Course 2: Truffled Maine lobster bisque. It was a small bowl, which was good because I don't like these tasting menus to be too much food. I ate tiny bites to make it last. What can I say - it was a perfect use of lobster and truffles. Heavenly. Served with an unoaked 2005 Chardonnay by Trefethan.

Course 3: Fois gras "P B & J" - A very light-hearted take on fois gras! It worked completely. The bread was toasted brioche. The Hudson Valley fois gras was barely cooked. The tart homemade blackberry jelly was on the side (which I appreciated, since I don't like sweet with meat). This meal was building in quality in a way that was almost dramatic. As a sort of joke we got a tiny glass of milk with our "P B & J". Also served with a glass of 2004 Chateau Camplazens Viognier.

Coup de Milieu - a small glass of Brazilian sugar cane alcohol (ypioca cachaca) with blueberries and lime. Delicioius!

Course 4: Speckled trout with caviar and caramelized red pepper. I couldn't detect the caviar, but I wasn't complaining. The trout was the tenderest and sweetest I've ever tasted. This was a truly memorable dish. Served with a 2005 Eola Hills Pinot Noir.

Course 5: Veal tenderloin injected with sour cherry juice and butter, served with perserved lemons and vegetables. Before this came out I was feeling that the last thing I needed at that moment was a hunk of meat, but this was actually the highlight of a great meal. It was served with a 2004 Archetype Shiraz.

Course 6: Pineapple upside-down cake with coconut, served with Creole cream cheese ice cream. Another light-hearted note that worked perfectly. I wish I could make that ice cream as it was like nothing I have eaten. Dessert was served with "J" Rose Brut NV which was the only off note in the meal - it didn't taste very good. (Which was just as well as I didn't need any more alcohol.)

The service was impeccable, but not at all like what you'd get in France (or even NYC). The staff was chatty - several people came around and chatted with us (but never while we were eating, so it wasn't intrusive). One waiter told us part of his life story. That's not what I'd generally want in a restaurant, but it was all part of the amazing experience and was a wonderful, memorable evening.

This post was originally published (in a slightly different form) on Chowhound.

For my report on the state of New Orleans' post-Katrina reconstruction, see here.

###

Would a woman president be taken seriously by an Arab state?

In her own words...

Why the Cleavage Issue Matters

The really interesting thing about the Hillary Cleavage Debate is the comments on the Washington Post Campaign Trail Blog's web page about it. (The page was originally called "Clinton cashing in on cleavage" but was later changed to "Let the cleavage conversation begin".)

The history is: The Washington Post published an article about an outfit Hillary wore on the Senate floor that had a slightly low-cut blouse. The article claimed that Hillary was showing cleavage and then analysed all the times she has worn sexy clothing. (I couldn't detect any cleavage in the accompanying photo.) The Clinton campaign sent out a fund-raising letter that started, "Would you believe that the Washington Post wrote a 746-word article on Hillary's cleavage? ...focusing on women's bodies instead of their ideas is insulting."

Comments on the blog about the issue include:

* The Clinton campaign is over-reacting and is being stupid and petty.
* The Clinton campaign is manipulating people by raising this issue.
* The article was flattering, so why complain?
* Hillary is a hypocrite because she has started to wear more feminine clothes.
* Since Hillary is old and has small breasts, it is gross to think about her body (the term "shrivelled tits" was used, along with several other epithets). This may be the most common theme of all the comments.

I can answer all those who profess not to understand why Hillary made an issue of the article. For the 8 years she was First Lady, Hillary's appearance was scrutinized until it nearly paralysed her. I recall feature articles in top news magazines that showed all of her hairstyles over the years, implying that there was something wrong with her moral fiber because she was inconsistent in her use of a hairband. (I believe she talks about it in her memoir Living History but I wasn't able to find the reference in my copy.)

In the west at least, most women change their clothing and hair styles on a regular basis, but in Hillary's case any change is raised as an indication that she (a) has to fake it to appear feminine; and (b) is a hypocrite and a liar.

Hillary has to take control of this issue or it could ruin her attempt to become president. It shouldn't be such a damaging issue for her, but it is because of a combination of sexism, smear tactics, and our fixation on titillation. She controls the issue by getting people to talk about it and to realize just how sexist and inappropriate it is, and how hurtful it is - not just to her, but to all of us.

Update May 2008: Since I wrote this, the Washington Post has removed the offensive comments from the page I reference.

###

Why I Endorse Hillary as Democratic Candidate for President

The thing that really strikes me about Hillary Clinton is that she understands context. When asked (during the CNN/YouTube debate) whether she would call herself a Liberal, she gave a brief non-preachy precis of the changing definition of Liberal over the last 100 years, as well as the original US meaning of the word "progressive". When asked whether she would negotiate with dictators in her first year in office she gave a brief description of an appropriate diplomatic approach, starting with envoys and being careful of how things are interpreted or spun in different places.

She has a lightness to her approach that the other Democratic candidates don't have. She seems to be bouncing lightly on the balls of her feet, smiling - she's confident and she's ready for any question. She's ready to win.

That she will win is very much in doubt. While she's still ahead by some measures (and second to Obama by others), the chance of a woman beoming US president is still low. Women may be better educated than men these days, but we do not by any stretch of the imagination have equality. Hillary faces huge prejudices aimed at powerful women and she faces an anti-Clinton Republican machine.

I like the other candidates. I really like Barack Obama and John Edwards. I endorse Hillary because she is by far the most qualified, and I think she will do the best job. In fact, I think she will be a far better president than her husband (and he was pretty damn good). History will change if Hillary is president, and the world will become a better place.

Down the road, with more experience (and perhaps a stint as VP), either Obama or Edwards would make a great president, but in 2008 Hillary's The Man.

###

King Lear (review)

As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods.
They kill us for their sport.

- King Lear

I've seen a lot of productions of King Lear, including ones starring Peter Ustinov and Christopher Plummer. I love the play, but the play usually doesn't make complete sense to me. Edgar's comments while pretending to be a mad hermit named Tom usually rankle: he seems too mad, and what he says seems out of whack. The motivations of the elder sisters to turn on their father generally don't quite work for me. The behavior of Gloucester seems irrational and stupid. Productions of Lear usually focus on the tour-de-force performance of whoever is playing Lear. Even more than Hamlet, Lear is generally all about the star.

In this year's Stratford Ontario production, the star is also the director, and through subtle yet masterful direction Brian Bedford makes sense of every line of dialogue and every character. His cast helps. With the slight exception of Sarah Topham as Cordelia, every speaking role is a brilliant Shakespearean performance. My favorites are Scott Wentworth and Peter Donaldson as Gloucester and Kent, but no less are the star turns of Wenna Shaw and Wendy Robie as Goneril and Regan (chillingly evil), Bernard Hopkins as the fool, and the rest of the cast.

(Topham isn't bad. She has a naturalistic style of acting that doesn't show up too well against all the Shakespeareans.)

Then there's Bedford's Lear. I have been a Bedford fan for 35 years and have seen him in dozens of plays, but I've never seen him do something like this. He starts as a strong, forceful king and diminishes into a tiny skinny old man (who nevertheless is able to carry the lifeless body of his daughter). He moves from someone who is overly hot-headed (his fool says, "If a man's brains were in his heels, were't not in danger of chilblains?") to someone who is mad, to someone who is mad with grief. His performance is achingly compelling and yet never goes over the top.

This is a brilliant Lear. Stratford is not doing well this year, and they're selling off tickets for many performances for half price (all are half price if you get rush seats two hours before the performance). The Festival Theater was about 80% full this afternoon (a Saturday).

(Note on the quote above: There are scholarly arguments about whether Shakespeare was a Catholic or Protestant, but doesn't it sound from the text like Shakespeare wasn't a Christian at all? His deities sound more like the Greek gods - certainly not monotheistic.)

###

The Humboldt Squid

Here is what I've read recently about the Humboldt squid:

* They're big. During a life span of less than two years they can grow to 7 feet long and 100 pounds, but they occasionally get far bigger: a 300-lb specimen was reported by Humboldt expert Scott Cassell.

* They're bad. They have razor-sharp beaks and their arms are covered with thousands of sharp barbs. They often don't try to kill their prey - they just latch on and start eating. They have been known to bite scuba divers and drag them down into the depths. They have killed fishermen who fell overboard. When a Humboldt is caught by a fisherman, hundreds of others may surround the boat - not to protect their captured colleague, but to try to eat it. Mexican fishermen call them diablos rojos (red devils).

* They're dangerous. They hunt cooperatively in packs of up to hundreds and can travel at 25 MPH. They have stereoscopic eyes (like us) and very large brains.

* They're weird. They have have a parrot-like beak, three hearts and blue blood. They can change color several times a second, from deep red to white. They prefer to hang out in the least-oxygenated part of the ocean where virtually nothing else can survive, but they can live at higher depths as well.

* There are a lot of them. Nobody seems to be willing to hazard a guess how many, but fisherman in California can go out and catch 200 in a few hours, essentially scooping them up until their boats can't handle any more weight. This California population explosion just started recently. On a worldwide scale, scientists believe that squids top humans in terms of total biomass.

* They're coming this way. Natives of South America, they recently colonized the waters off of California, but have been spotted as far north as Alaska. Their migration may have more to do with the over-fishing of their main predators/competitors than with water temperature.

Here is some cool video footage of Humboldt squid. I couldn't find any really grisly videos of Humboldts, but here's a video of an octopus killing a shark.

Is this all real? I think it mostly is - even though scientists seem to be bickering over details, and there's a fair likelihood that the California infestation is a transitory phenomenon. But I have to admit that yes, Humboldt squid are even more scary than man-eating clams. ;-)

###

France: Enlightened, Progressive - an Evolved Democracy

When France opposed the US invasion of Iraq there was an unbelievable backlash in the US. (We all remember "Freedom fries".) Jokes abounded (and still do) about the French. Some of them were even pretty funny. But it seems likely that they originated in the office of Karl Rove or his ilk, in the now all-too-familiar scenario of the Bush administration striking back at its political opponents.

Recently, however, France's reputation is on the rise. As the Bush administration continues to bomb, torture, wire-tap and generally act like a bunch of murderous thugs, France is emerging as a state of enlightenment that is taking a lead in progressive international affairs.

Michael Moore helped with his portrayal of France in his new film SiCKO. France appears as the most evolved form of democracy in the world - where the state runs more for the benefit of the people rather than overemphasizing the wishes of lobbyists and political donors (as most of us western "democracies" do). French people have the best health care in the world, the strongest employee protection laws, and so on. (And no, the capitalist system did not collapse.)

This week France has been in the news twice in high profile cases. First, Cecilia Sarkozy, wife of the newly elected French president, negotiated a deal with Libyan president Moammar Gadhafi to free Bulgarian medical staff who were facing the death penalty in Libya. (It makes you think that Libya must have been desperate to find a solution to the mess, and that the rest of the world must have been negligent, if Libya was so willing to release the prisoners after speaking to such an unofficial source.)

Then we learn that President Sarkozy named Bernard Kouchner as his new foreign minister - that's the same Kouchner who founded Doctors Without Borders - and in his first week in office, Kouchner convened a summit which led to EU troops mobilizing to help ease the suffering in Darfur. Everyone else seems to be just wringing their hands. (The UN is considering deployment, but is said to be "years away" from being able to send troops.)

I think it's time we all start paying a lot more attention to France, and think about using it as a role model. (In the French press today: a law has just been passed that no income tax will be charged on wages paid for overtime.) Here are some English-language sites I've bookmarked:

The Tocqueville Connection
French News
Expatica
Le Monde Diplomatique

###

Jean Georges Restaurant (review)

Two of us ate at Jean Georges (the formal restaurant - there is also an informal one) in the Trump Tower, New York City on Friday, July 20 at 8:15 PM. We each had a tasting menu (7 courses, fixed price $150) and we each had the accompanying wine tasting menu (a very small glass of wine with each course, fixed price $120 and $100 for the "Summer" and "Classic" tasting menus, respectively). The total bill was $650 (all prices in US dollars). The amount of food was good - all the courses were very small, so we didn't leave feeling bloated (although we might have done had we eaten the desserts, which we didn't care for).

The room is very pleasant and elegant. The tables are widely spaced and comfortable, with one exception - our table, which was much too close to the table next to us. I shared a bench with the woman at the next table and we all heard every word said at both tables.

The wait staff is extremely knowledgeable and correct, but they were not pleasant or welcoming - when we had questions they answered them correctly but tended to back away as if talking was to be discouraged. We had to ask them to slow down the pace because the first two courses came out much too quickly.

(I didn't have the feeling that we were in the Reject's seats, as the people at the next table were moneyed New Yorkers and the man even seemed to be a regular. I also didn't feel that we got worse service than anyone else... if anything, I think we got better service than the norm.)

I describe all our courses and wines below. Our overall rating for Jean Georges is B- or C+. It's not a ripoff; they are trying to be a good restaurant, but the food just doesn't taste very good. They are particularly inept at desserts (which they tried to make up for by serving way too much). The wines were very interesting and were probably the best part of the meal, although the amount they poured was too little - it wasn't even enough to sip through the course. Also, the "Summer" menu wines were much better than the "Classic" menu wines (although my companion felt that she should have got more than one glass of red out of her seven glasses). At the end of the meal I asked for a list of the wines and then I did a little google research on them... unfortunately, the list is apparently not completely correct, as I detail below. It was also full of typos.

One last thing... despite the problems with the food, we had a really good time. I chose not to complain about some of my dishes (such as the raw egg in my caviar dish) in part because I didn't want to sour the mood. I definitely do not recommend Jean Georges, but the evening was fun and if nothing else, educational.

Here is the meal for each of us ("Summer" and "Classic" tasting menus):

For each:
Amuse bouche: a plate with four tiny items: a baby radish with coriander butter; a cherry that had been marinated in Sake; a clear green tomato gazbacho; and a tiny shrimp-toast. After it was all over we both agreed that this was the best part of the meal (excepting the cherry, which was not enhanced by the Sake).

"Summer tasting menu"
(my companion)

Course 1: A sandwich of slow-cooked egg yolk, American Sturgeon caviar and dill on slices on brioche

My companion was very happy with this dish. I found it too salty.

Wine: Champagne Delamotte, Le Mesnil-sur-Oger Brut NV

This was a good champagne but we didn't find it to be particularly exciting. They filled our flutes only half-way, which was not very festive.

(Info: Wine Enthusiast score 93. Rated 91/100. "One of the best buys in exquisitely crafted champagne, this wine smells of fresh bread dough intermixed with buttery citrus. It reveals light to medium body, extraordinary precision, and a lingering effervescence with tiny pinpoint bubbles." - Robert Parker, The Wine Advocate ...The House of Delamotte is the fifth-oldest Champagne house in the region, founded in 1760, and located in the heart of the Côte des Blancs in Le Mesnil-sur-Oger. Delamotte is small (just 25,000 cases annually) and one of Champagne's best-kept secrets. It is the sister winery of the legendary House of Salon. The two wineries sit side-by-side and are both run by Didier Depond." It costs $39 a bottle.)

Course 2: Sliced hamachi, opal basil, cherry tomato

This raw fish didn't really work. When the man at the next table got it, we saw that he had a layer of something else under the fish. This layer had been left off my companion's plate. Perhaps it made it more interesting.

Wine: Gruner Veltliner, Alzinger Muhlpoint Smaragd, Wachau, Austria 2005

(Info: "Sleek, clear, winsome yet authoritative wines from the kindly hands of the newest Wachau superstar, Leo Alzinger Sr... Every vintage since 1995 is amongst the best collection in Austria. Alzinger’s wines are uniformly threaded into skeins of nuance and even when they’re at their biggest they’re always shapely and lissome. They aren’t delicious because they’re great; they’re great because they’re delicious. (The 2004 is $43.50)")

Course 3: Green asparagus with morels in cream sauce

Lightly cooked asparagus, simple morel cream sauce. My companion could see the reason for pairing these two (they are in season together) but she didn't feel that the cream sauce worked with the asparagus. Note also that we buy fresh Canadian morels in our local grocery store ($5.99 for 3.5 ounces) and make a similar sauce very easily.

Wine: Sauvignon Blanc, Brander Au naturel, Santa Ynex Valley, California 2006

We loved this wine!

(Info: 92 points (for the 2004 Au Naturel). "California's top Sauvignon Blanc specialist continues on a roll with this wonderfully pure, clean wine. It's crisp and bone dry in gooseberry, lemon, lime and fig flavors, with an intense cassis flavor that's unusual and thrilling in a dry Sauvignon Blanc. You'll savor every sip of this exceptional wine.")

Course 4: Seared sea trout, watermelon, paprika, lime

The trout was mushy, a real disappointment after the fabulous sea trout we ate at Commander's Palace in New Orleans recently. The watermelon was very good. They had marinated the watermelon to make it spicy, and then had vacuum-packed it to remove the juice and condense it - that's the kind of innovative and delicious cooking we expect from a restaurant of this caliber.

Wine: Vogelsang, Heidi Schrock, Weinbaurin, Austria, 2006

When he brought this wine, our waiter described it as a blended wine (the first grape started with "Welsh" but he said it was not from Wales). I am taking the wine names from the list given us by the sommelier and I'm not sure that we got the Heidi Schrock... in any event, this wine was fabulous: full of layers of wonderful flavors.

(Info: "Named "Austria's Wine-Grower of the Year" in 2003 by renowned wine magazine Falstaff, Heidi Schrock is the coolest female winemaker in Austria. Heidi has gathered experience from places like South Africa & Germany and brought it all back to her hometown of Rust. She took over the winery from her parents 20 years ago and has since spend much of her time reviving traditional wines of her Austro-Hungarian forefathers. The family motto states that tradition should be honored but also mixed with progress; for it means keeping alive the fire, not adoring the ashes.")

Course 5: Maine lobster, grilled corn gnocchi, sweet garlic nage, Jalapeno-parsley relish

This dish was delivered to me although it should have gone to my companion. I didn't like it at all. Some of the lobster was tough and hard to cut, and some was unsweet and slightly mushy. The broth just didn't taste very good. We switched plates for this course and my companion liked it better than what she got.

Wine: Viognier, Yves Cuilleron, Rhone, France, 2006

A really, really delicious wine! (I saw the 2005 on another restaurant's wine menu for $47/bottle, so it is not an expensive wine, probably under $20 in a store.)

Course 6: Rack of lamb with Thai pepper and mint, sweet pea puree

This was the second appearance of the sweet pea puree for my companion. She felt that the lamb was pedestrian. There was a nice pile of sweet peas and peanuts on the side. This was just okay.

Wine: Guidalberto, Sant Guido, Tuscany, Italy 2004

Very pleasant red wine that perfectly accompanied the lamb.

Dessert: We had four choices for dessert: chocolate, citrus, rhubarb or summer. Each was a selection of four small desserts.

My companion chose the "summer selection", which had four items: a tomato dessert salad; plum sorbet; sliced peaches with farmer's cheese; and a cooked cherry pudding with cocoa-based mousse on the side.

The tomato salad was not edible. The plum sorbet was so thin in flavor as to be uninteresting. I liked the sliced peaches very much but my companion did not. The cherry pudding was good.

Wine: Recioto De Soave Classico, Gini Col Foscarin, Veneto, Italy, 2001

A lovely white dessert wine!

(Info: Made from 100% Garganega, the name 'Col Foscarin' comes from the hillside where these vines for this wine are grown. Full golden yellow color, Intense and elegant bouquet with a note of ripe citrus fruits and apricot jam. Rich on the palate, full bodied, refined and with excellent persistence. The grapes are harvested in small wooden boxes and only the best bunches are taken for drying. These boxes are put into a special drying room (fruttaio) where there is natural ventilation. After five to six months the grapes are pressed after being selected once again.")

"Classic menu"
(I had this selection)

Course 1: Egg caviar

Served in a brown hen's egg, this is supposed to be lightly scrambled eggs on the bottom, with a dollop of vodka-infused whipped cream on top of that, with American sturgeon caviar on top. Unfortunately, the egg layer was completely uncooked and liquid, which tasted sort of yucky and also the two top layers fell into it and dissolved, making a mess. This course was not edible. I should have said something but our waiter disappeared at this point and a bus boy removed our plates.

Wine: Champagne Delamotte, as above

Course 2: Sea scallops, caramelized cauliflower, caper-raisin emulsion

An odd dish. Maybe I just don't like sweetened cauliflower, but it totally wiped out the tiny partial piece of scallop and didn't taste good at all.

Wine: Savennieres, Chateau de Chamboreau, Roches aux Moines - Cuvee d'Avant, Loire, France 2001

My first sip had an unpleasant aftertaste, like gasoline or maybe fingernail polish remover. This aftertaste diminished somewhat but never completely went away.

Course 3: Young garlic soup with thyme, sauteed frog's legs.

The soup was pleasant but a little bland. The tiny frog's legs were crispy and very lemony and quite nice.

Wine: Pinot Auxerrois, Albert Mann Vieilles Vignes, Alsace, France 2006

The waiter described this red wine as a "thin skinned grape that should be served cold." It was interesting. I enjoyed trying it very much (but might not order it if I have the chance). It tasted a bit like a Beaujolais Nouveau. Once again I'm not sure if the sommelier gave us the correct wine when he gave us a list of what we drank.

(Info: This goes for about $13 a bottle in a store. For info see the Albert Mann web site.)

Course 4: Turbot with Chateau Chalon Sauce

The turbot was very plain but well cooked (nice and firm). The sauce was okay but didn't really hit the spot. It had an odd sweetness to it. This course was just okay.

Wine: Chardonnay, Patz & Hall, Dutton Ranch, Russian River Valley, California, 2005

Nice oaky chardonnay.

(Info: "Rated: 91. Bright yellow. Restrained, pure nose hints at lemon ice; quite Chablis-like. Juicy, sharply delineated, if more tropical fruity in the mouth; but the flavors of pineapple and guava are refreshing rather than heavy. A nicely gripping chardonnay that conveys an impression of texture without weight. Finishes fresh and persistent." About $35 in a store.)

Course 5: Lobster Tartine, lemongrass and Fenugreek broth, pea shoots.

They mixed up this course (giving me my companion's dish), something we didn't realize until we checked the menus later. However, we both disliked the dish we had been presented so we switched and I ended up with the Lobster tartine. The broth was very tasty, not unlike something you'd get in a Thai restaurant. The lobster claw was not sweet and was a bit mushy, like a lobster that has been in a warm water holding tank for too long and then overcooked, but overall I enjoyed this dish.

Wine: Trousseau, Frederic Lornet, Arbois 2004

Again, I'm not sure that the sommelier gave me the correct name for this one. What I got was a white wine that was served fairly warm, which was suitable. It was an interesting wine and I'd like to try it again, so I'm sorry I don't know what it was (the Trousseau appears to be a red).

Course 6: Broiled squab, onion compote, Corn pancake with fois gras

Good squab (although the skin was not crispy). The corn pancake was mushy and sweet (not very good). The Hudson Valley fois gras was bland... I'm a huge fan of fois gras and had some great Hudson Valley just recently, so I'm not sure how they could mess it up so... it was nearly raw, which I like.

Wine: Syrah, Qupe Bien Nacido Vineyard, California, 2004

Nice full-bodied red.

(Info: Rated 92 points. $28/bottle.)

Dessert: I chose the "chocolate selection", which was a chocolate cake/souffle with vanilla ice cream; a salty chocolate "donut"; a chocolate brownie-like thing; and a little glass of two-layered chocolate liquid. I didn't care for any of them. The donut and brownie-type thing were both excessively salty and weird tasting. Between the two plates there was too much cocoa powder used.

Wine: Banyuls, M. Chapoutier, Languedoc-Roussillon, France 2004

A red dessert wine, it was okay, not exceptional.

(Wine Spectator said: "Fig and dark plum flavors dominate this rich and ripe dessert-style red. Balanced and fresh, with a good structure and a mint chocolate finish. Drink now through 2008. 270 cases made." About $17 a bottle.)

For each:
Friandises: homemade marshmallows (vanilla, strawberry and peppermint); homemade chocolates; homemade berry and orange jellies; and tiny macaroons (about the size of my small fingernail) filled with cream.

Great selection! However, we only enjoyed the macaroons. The jellies were very good but didn't go well with coffee. The rest just didn't taste very good. Even the little chocolates were odd-tasting.

On leaving they gave us each a tiny gift bag. In the bag was a fancy little box. In the box were two tiny chocolates (like the ones that came with the friandises). This seemed a tad precious.

###

Joyful Death

That masterful negation
and collapse of all that makes me man.

- John Henry Newman in a poem set to music by Edward Elgar as The Dream of Gerontius

No, I'm not on my deathbed. I just attended the opening night gala of the Elora Festival.

The poet was a Roman Catholic cardinal and Elgar a staunch Catholic, but I have to wonder at the title. The work describes the death of Gerontius, followed by the judgement of his soul and its installment in purgatory, but the piece is called The Dream as if this is Gerontius's fantasy.

It also doesn't sound very Christian to say that death is the "collaspe of all that makes me man." Scholars may roll their eyes at my ignorance, but it's possible that a cardinal could be unwittingly unchristian. An author never completely understands the values he embeds in his works, and... paganism will out?

Christianity flourishes in Elgar's exuberant, joyful music depicting death. I'm not a believer but I like that attitude towards one's own demise. It is inevitable, natural, and unknowable, the thing that defines everything else we do, the ultimate. It does seem to be a state of grace to be able to embrace it.

I attended a full rehearsal before the performance, so got a double blast of the brilliance of Noel Edison, the Toronto Mendelssohn Choir, Elora Festival Singers, Festival Orchestra, and soloists Kimberly Barber, Michael Colvin and Tyler Duncan. The music was sublime.

Noel Edison got in a good zinger during the rehearsal. After they rehearsed God Save the Queen, Noel said, "That one's for Conrad." (Conrad Black, aka Lord Black of Crossharbour, was convicted of fraud and obstruction of justice today.)

###

SiCKO (Review)

I really enjoyed SiCKO. Like most Michael Moore films it's engaging and thought-provoking. The movie goes beyond condemning US health insurance, so my reaction as a Canadian was not smug complacence. The real message of the movie is that the people should have more power in society, a theme that applies to Canada as well as the US. (We especially need stronger employment regulations, a theme I tend to harp on about.)

Those who don't agree with Moore will call the film propaganda, and that's not unfair. His arguments are emotional, to say the least. But boy is he effective. Tonight on CNN I saw uncredited shots from the movie of confused people in hospital gowns dumped on skid row (some US hospitals kick patients out of their beds when they can't pay, no matter what physical state they're in). Anderson Cooper said, "We have been reporting on this issue for over a year and a half." Well I sure missed it. And haven't you noticed that all of a sudden you're hearing about how well France runs things? That's straight out of SiCKO.

I remember the left-wing films of my youth. Many leftist activists would twist any issue to try to bring about their ultimate goal - the revolution, the downfall of society, and the start of the socialist utopia. Leftist films frequently were just a pack of lies and conspiracy theories spooned out to the gullible. It was like there was a worm in the movement making things rotten and reducing credibility. (Nowadays the Right has taken over the role of uncredible ideological extremist, and the Left has taken over the role of pragmatist - even to the extent of being fiscally conservative. Funny old world, isn't it?)

Moore isn't like those old Marxist lefties. Agree or disagree, he is working honestly and transparently to make his case for what he sees to be a better world. And I tend to agree with him. When he says, "How did we become like this?" with a note of despair, you know he's speaking from the heart.

The only Moore film that didn't hit a right note with me was Bowling for Columbine, which was confused and uncredible. (I don't think Canadians will ever quite forgive him for saying that we don't lock our front doors - not that we wouldn't want to live in a crimeless state, but it just ain't so.) And his ultimate conclusion for why there is so much crime in the US - the nightly news - was just silly.

But of his oeuvre, Moore has produced three marvellous, world-changing films: Roger & Me, Fahrenheit 9/11 and SiCKO. And on the basis of SiCKO, I'd say he's getting better and better.

###

Why Vote for Dalton McGuinty

Here are three reasons to vote Liberal in this fall's Ontario election, just as a start...

1. Check this out: http://dalton.ca/en/. It's a wee bit boring, but he says some good things. I especially recommend the bit about why he implemented the health care premium after saying he wouldn't raise taxes. Dalton's a good premier for Ontario.

2. Mike Harris Mike Harris Mike Harris Mike Harris Mike Harris Mike Harris Mike Harris Mike Harris Mike Harris. Black booted cops at Queen's Park, A cabinet minister who jumped backwards into a bush and then claimed he was pushed, Sarah Polley getting her teeth kicked in, massive layoffs of nurses, health care system nearly destroyed, a huge hidden deficit, Toronto amalgamation, etc etc etc -- You might counter: why blame the current Conservative leader for a Conservative leader four years ago? The answer is that the Conservatives have a lot to answer for after the debacle of the Harris/Eaves years and the horrendous mess they left our province in.

3. The NDP's self-destruction during the years of the great Bob Rae, indicating that the Ontario NDP is not yet ready to run things.

###

Libby Roundup

Here are some good reading/viewing sources in the Libby case:

* Dan Froomkin's summary in the Washington Post
* Interview with Joe Wilson on MSNBC
* Joe and Valerie (Plame) Wilson's legal support trust

On a personal note, while I think Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence is of the greatest importance and I agree with Joe Wilson that this is a case of treason and corruption, the brashness of their actions makes it difficult to express outrage anymore. Criticizing the Bush government is like punching a big steel wall. This past Sunday I heard a Republican strategist on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" saying that Cheney is an inspiration to all Republicans because of his audacious actions. She said he makes people mad but he gets things done. Public reaction doesn't seem to matter to these people at all - they are increasingly moving into a world of no accountability.