joe posts

When people need dental care but can’t afford it, they either ignore it, end up in emerg with a bad infection or find someone willing to do the work for cheap. That’s where “Dr.” Jimmy Connolly came in. For a small fee he’d operate on your mouth in his basement “office.” He was only found out after someone developed serious infections as a result of his work, which wasn’t conducted in the most hygienic of environments. From the Ottawa Citizen:

Police seized equipment and a dental chair from Mr. Bytyqi’s ‘office’ on Thursday, and he then turned himself in the next morning.

“It wasn’t your typical dental office,” said Det. Sisk, adding that he was surprised Mr. Bytyqi performed dental procedures in a carpeted room.

“It was in the basement of a home and it wasn’t what you would expect as far as sanitation goes,” he said. “I wouldn’t expect any of that in my dental office.”

Very sad.

It’s not just middle-class and poor people who depend on the planet for survival who care about the environment! Canada’s CEOs are becoming concerned that the environment may be threatened by climate change – the financial environment, that is. Apparently it’s getting trickier to get rich in Canada because we haven’t done anything about climate change on the federal level. From the Toronto Star:

Some businesses are becoming hesitant about investing in Canada because of the “policy chaos” on climate change being created by the federal and provincial governments, says the head of the country’s top business group.

In a letter to provincial leaders being released Monday in advance of the premiers’ two-day meeting in Vancouver, Tom d’Aquino of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives chides the premiers for going it alone on climate change with “different objectives and often inconsistent policies”.

“They’re all over the map … it’s policy chaos,” he said in an interview.

“We’re talking about issues that will have a profound impact on major industries and ultimately Canadian consumers, and if you (governments) all moving in different directions it means you have overlapping regulations, conflicting relations.”

The mega-rich don’t necessarily care about the planet – I’ve always assumed they’ve been building rocketships to take them to a better planet when they’re done with ours – what else could they spend $8.5 million a year on? They’re just frustrated that the federal government has basically missed the boat on the environment. Instead of having something like the Kyoto protocol or any significant pro-environment country-wide legislation, we now have 10 different provinces coming up with their own rules to meet their own standards to make up for the lack of federal laws. And I’m sure many municipalities will start making their own rules once the province drops the ball (I have so much faith in government, eh?).

I can’t help but point out the irony here – big businesses, including groups like the CCCE have lobbied against plans to help fight climate change for years because they worried about the possibility of regulations stifling economic growth, which could, possibly, cut into their companies’ profit margin. They’ve clearly preferred risking irrevocable environmental damage over risking temporary financial and economic turmoil. In a speech to the federal government in 2001, the president of the CCCE, Thomas d’Aquino, had this to say about the Kyoto Protocol:

We must be equally vigilant in avoiding regulatory or legislative action that discourages investment or adds to business costs. In particular, Canada should not make any decision on ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change without a clear understanding of what additional costs consumers, industry and governments would have to bear. Especially at a time of falling prices for many of Canada’s energy-intensive exports, we must be careful not to impose new burdens on Canadian companies that would not be faced by competitors abroad. [emphasis mine] – CCCE, 2001

Now that the federal government has adopted an official hands-off position when it comes to climate change (as opposed to the Liberal plan which was the same thing but with more broken promises), CEOs are… worried about how the lack of a plan to tackle climate change might eat into their companies’ profit margin.

CEO’s sure are good at worrying about losing money due to federal government (in)action. But hey, that’s why we pay these people big bucks! That’s why they make 218 times what the average Canadian makes in a year. That’s why by New Years day, 10:30 AM, they’ll have made what YOU probably make in an entire year. They’ll have made what I make in a year by… well, probably by their 9:30 AM ‘champagne-with-floating-diamonds & gold-wrapped-cuban-cigar’ break.

Sigh.. and I don’t even get a coffee break. Anyways, enough of the IWW-talk.

I wonder if there will be any government response to this new demand by our elites? We seem to have abandoned the Kyoto protocol because big businesses and powerful people like these CEOs spent years and millions of dollars lobbying the government to make sure it never happened. Now that nothing has happened, they’re complaining that nothing has been done!

I guess the solution is to let CEOs write our laws & cut out the middlemen – our elected officials. At least we know that they think they have the ability to handle climate change…

At the same time, we feel that the development and enforcement of standards in … fields [such as environmental policy] should be pursued first in the international institutions that already have a mandate to do so. Trade and investment agreements are not the best vehicles for attaining higher standards in areas not directly related to trade. – CCCE, 1999.

So it is up to the government to protect the environment. Except when it cuts into corporate profits. Then it’s “policy chaos” or a “new burden” for corporations to bear.

I found this confusing. You know how they’re confiscating liquids at airports, because someone, somewhere, maybe possibly figured out a way to create an explosive mixture using liquid chemicals in an airplane washroom?

So they take your bottles of shaving cream and shampoo and mouthwash because it might be explosive. Naturally they take these dangerous little bottles and store them in secure containers to be disposed of by a properly-trained bomb squad, right?

“At most Canadian airports, said CATSA spokesman Mathieu Larocque, the confiscated material ‘goes straight to the garbage.’” – The Toronto Star

When I first found this out I thought, hmm, that’s odd, they aren’t worried about the liquids mixing together and blowing up some poor garbage collector?

Now some airports are considering that a waste (duh) and are selling or giving away the confiscated items. That’s right, these objects are too dangerous to have on an airplane, so… poor people can have them?

It’s almost as if they don’t take the threat of a bomb being made out of little bottles of chemicals in an airplane washroom seriously. There can’t be much of a threat if these potential bombs are just being tossed in a dustbin or sent to charities.

But I guess it’s a good way of keeping people scared and frustrated, which seems to be the point of most government security measures these days.

Earlier this month, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy issued a press release explaining how Canada’s “new” version of ecstasy was poised to destroy American children everywhere.

“The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is warning public health and safety leaders across the country about a dangerous new drug threat coming from Canada. Ecstasy laced with methamphetamine (meth) has been entering the United States illegal drug markets, particularly in northern border states. Intelligence reports indicate that once smuggled into the U.S., the meth-laced Ecstasy is then being distributed throughout the country.” – ONDCP

I don’t know whether to laugh or gut-laugh. This is new? I’ve never been to a rave or anywhere where ecstasy use was popular but even I know that it’s often mixed with other substances, particularly stimulants. And it was news to the RCMP. From The Toronto Star:

The head of the RCMP’s national drug branch is debunking claims by the United States’ drug czar, who claims organized crime rings in Canada are dumping dangerous, methamphetamine-laced “extreme ecstasy” into his country’s illegal drug market.

Supt. Paul Nadeau said he doesn’t know why John Walters, of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, would make such statements in a widely distributed news release without checking facts with Canadian officials.

“I shook my head when I read the release that they put out,” said Nadeau, adding he’s never heard of extreme ecstasy.

“That term is unknown to us, certainly in Canada, and I can tell you that I’ve spoken to law enforcement people in the U.S. and they’ve never heard of it either so it would appear that it’s a term that somebody came up with in a boardroom in Washington, D.C.”

Kinda shoots a few (more) holes in Walters’ credibility as ‘drug czar’, considering that the RCMP isn’t exactly a fan of ecstasy and could always use another reason to go after producers of the drug.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there was more Ecstasy with methamphetamine added available to users of the drug, compared to 10 or 20 years ago, when it was less well-known but widely used by people in the club scene. But it’s hard to believe – given that the RCMP denies it and it’s apparently not a problem in Canada – that a particular country can be held responsible for it.

(updated below)

So the Canadian government went and did something stupid. They made a reasonably accurate and unbiased assessment regarding the human rights records of countries around the world in a manual for diplomats. Despite their best efforts to keep it out of the public eye, it was accidentally released and has been extensively reported on over the last few days – even in the American press.

And it upset some American officials because it burst their patriot-bubble with a dose of harsh reality.

From The Toronto Star:

A Foreign Affairs Department training manual titled “Torture Awareness Workshop Reference Materials,” gives the legal definitions of torture and instructs consular officials how to detect signs of abuse of Canadians detained abroad.

Under the heading, “Possible Torture/Abuse Cases,” the manual lists Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Guantanamo Bay, Iran, Israel, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Syria and United States.

From Al-Jazeera:

“It has also classified some interrogation methods used by the US as torture, including isolation, sleep deprivation and blindfolding”

From CNN:

“We find it to be offensive for us to be on the same list with countries like Iran and China. Quite frankly it’s absurd,” U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins to Canada said. “For us to be on a list like that is just ridiculous.”

It’s apparent that this sort of thing could prevent us from becoming the 51st state. The Harper Administration even tried to censor the documents, to no avail.

“After the documents were released as evidence in a court case relating to Afghan detainees, the government tried to get them back. Sources say that Ottawa apparently wanted to black out sensitive parts that may anger allies.” - CTV

So Canada’s New Goverment™ has come up with an innovative solution: rewrite the manual and make sure it’s inaccurate!

From the New York Times:

The Canadian minister of foreign affairs, Maxime Bernier, said Saturday that he had ordered officials to rewrite an internal government manual that listed the United States among countries that potentially torture or abuse prisoners.

“I regret the embarrassment caused by the public disclosure of the manual used in the department’s torture awareness training,” Mr. Bernier said in a statement. “It contains a list that wrongly includes some of our closest allies. I have directed that the manual be reviewed and rewritten.”

The United States government has repeatedly said that it does not torture prisoners, an assurance that has been accepted by Canada’s Conservative government.

See? The USA doesn’t torture – the list was wrong! The government didn’t mean to list the world’s only superpower that’s currently fighting wars in two countries and holding prisoners indefinitely in a sketchy prison camp in a third country. It was an accident. If anything, Cuba should be listed twice for forcing the Americans to set up shop there.

And then there’s Israel. From the Jerusalem Post:

Michael Mendel, the Israeli Embassy spokesman in Ottawa, commented on Israel’s initial inclusion in the list by noting that Israel’s Supreme Court “is on record as expressly prohibiting any type of torture. If Israel is included in the list in question, the ambassador of Israel would expect its removal,” he said.

That’s right – Israel prohibits torturing prisoners. But I guess they just mean Jewish prisoners, because there are official records of Israelis torturing Palestinians and then lying about it:

“An official Israeli report has acknowledged for the first time that the Israeli security service tortured detainees during the Palestinian uprising, the Intifada, between 1988 and 1992. … The report did not detail the torture methods used, but human rights organisations say some detainees died or were left paralysed. … The Israeli Government has, in the past, denied that it used any interrogation methods that amounted to torture. ” – BBC

But it seems that any Tory-friendly government that complains about Canada’s New Goverment™ doesn’t torture, so I assume Israel’s record will be cleared from the manual by Minister Bernier.

As usual, voters are stuck drawing our own conclusions because the Harper Administration won’t say how they’ll be changing the manual – in the interests of transparency and accountability, no doubt.

So what will they change?

Will they now instruct Canadian diplomats that the USA doesn’t isolate, blindfold and deprive prisoners of sleep, even though they’ve admitted that much and have been accused of much more?

Or has Harper decided that these actions are no longer considered torture?

Will we end up embracing American-style “enhanced interrogation” by condoning this heinous behaviour?

After all, if blindfolding someone, isolating them, chaining them to the bars of their cell and depriving them of sleep until they have a mental breakdown and confess to whatever their captors have accused them of isn’t torture, what is it?

Update: The manual is available online at thestar.com (pdf).

The Chalk River fiasco is back in the news.

Fortunately it’s not because the reactor blew after an earthquake knocked out the cooling systems. Phew!

Thank Jebus Canada’s New Government™ had the courage and wisdom to blame the Liberal Party and then order the reactor to restart even though it wasn’t considered safe by the people we pay to determine such trivialities. If Homer Simpson can run a nuclear reactor, surely a politician can!

But they’re not done. Oh no – now they have to find some bureaucrat to blame, after all, Canada’s New Government™ can’t look like they don’t know what’s going on in the nuclear medical field. So they’re targeting the person who decided to err on the side of caution, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission head Linda Keen. Some of Harper’s most eloquent and level-headed ministers took her aside and calmly told her that they felt she had made some questionable decisions regarding the planned upgrades while head of the commission, then asked for her opinions on the matter and suggested she make some institutional changes to better fit their policies…

… Actually, no, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn sent her a letter asking her to tell THEM why they shouldn’t fire her! And then, in the interests of transparency, I presume, the letter was leaked to the press so that we could all read what a terrible commission head Linda Keen is. It’s just terrible how she tried to make a nuclear reactor as safe as possible!

She’s understandably upset by all this – nobody likes being called an idiot in a national newspaper (that’s what blogs are for, Mr. Lunn… you idiot!). Keen is now looking at her legal options – she’s not going down without a fight especially since her reputation is at stake, not just her career. And as it turns out, the crown corporation in charge of the reactor (AECL) sided with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s decision to close and upgrade the reactor:

“I have unwavering commitment to safety … and the only safe and prudent action available to me, I believe, in this situation was to keep the reactor shut down and perform those upgrades. It’s critical to upgrade those pumps,” – Atomic Energy’s senior vice-president Brian McGee (emphasis mine)

“What they want to know is, is this reactor safe, and the answer is yes.” – Tony Clement (emphasis mine)

On one hand, we have experienced scientists and industry experts telling us that it’s a good idea to upgrade a really old reactor because the cooling systems could fail during a natural disaster. On the other hand we have politicians worrying about the political implications of voters upset over nuclear medicine delays, then deciding they’re nuclear experts and ordering the reactor to restart – and then they all left town for their holiday break, LOL. What, they didn’t want to be near Chalk River? What are the odds an earthquake could strike any time soon?

“Since the reactor was restarted on Dec. 16, said Mr. McGee, there have been two minor earthquakes in the region.” – Globe and Mail

According to Canada’s New Government™, the isotope shortage was the fault of the scientists in charge of nuclear safety. Even though experts have been warning that a shortage was all but inevitable, Canada’s New Government™ blames the eggheads responsible for averting nuclear meltdowns.

Typical Ottawa bullshit.

It’s not like politicians could just say “Look, we know now that there’s a major problem, and now we’re going to fix it!” Nope, Tories like Health Minister Milhouse van Houten.. I mean Tony Clement prefers to focus on who to blame (ie: not him!!!):

“The prime minister was quite serious when he said we want to get to the bottom of this and we will get to the bottom of this,” – Tony “Milhouse” Clement

It’s curious that the nuclear safety watchdog gets blamed for the lack of medical isotopes, which is above all a health care issue. But Canada’s Nuclear Government™ will not be held accountable because Linda Keen was appointed by a Liberal.

Clearly her decision to keep the reactor shut down until mandatory, overdue upgrades were finished was driven by her need to punish the Conservative Party by cutting off the world’s supply of medically necessary nuclear isotopes.

Clearly this has nothing to do with passing the buck and punishing the competent.

/sarcasm

This is an update to my previous blog entry on the RIAA’s assertion that copying music off a CD is not legal. The Washington Post has issued a correction to the story I quoted.

The RIAA is now saying that they never meant to give that impression. Lawyers ‘misspoke’ and didn’t mean to assert that copying a CD you own for personal use is theft. When RIAA prosecutor Richard Gabriel asked Sony’s head litigator Jennifer Pariser during Jammie Thomas’ trial if copying a track of music for personal use from a CD is legal and she replied “when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song”, it was all just a big misunderstanding:

“The Sony person who (Fisher) relies on actually misspoke in that trial,” [RIAA president] Sherman said. “I know because I asked her after stories started appearing. It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry.”

President Sherman also took issue with the WaPo article, saying that the RIAA only went after him because he copied that music into a “Shared” folder where others could possibly download it. The lawyers never meant to call copying CD’s an illegal act.. all they said was:

“Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the ‘.mp3′ format. … Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the .mp3 format for his and his wife’s use. … Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs.”

According to the RIAA’s latest statements on this matter, it wasn’t the CD ripping that was illegal, it was the fact that he could have shared them via file-trading networks.

Apologies to the RIAA – they’re more reasonable than I thought… uh.. wait a minute..

The fact that the RIAA’s own website says copying music to a computer is not a legal right muddies the water a bit, wouldn’t you say?

“there’s no legal ‘right’ to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R.”

But:

“However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:

• The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
• The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.”

I can only take so much doublespeak – Wired has a good summary of the confusion. Their verdict?

“So, to sum up, the RIAA does believe that a majority of American music buyers are thieving criminals, but it’s not going to sue anyone over ripping MP3s because) a) it’s not really a big deal to them anymore b) there’s no real way to find out and/or c) it would be terrible publicity to sue someone for using an iPod.”

Which leads me back to the point of my previous blog entry – you practically need a legal team to figure out what you’re allowed to do with the music you’ve purchased. Can anyone say with any clarity whether backing up CDs for personal use is allowed in the USA? It seems not – not when the RIAA president says “Yes,” RIAA’s antipiracy division says “No, but we won’t hunt you down” and the representatives of big media companies that support the RIAA say “No, and you will be punished if you’re in court for infringement” but only when it supports their legal position in a trial they desperately wanted the RIAA to win.

I honestly don’t know, and am growing increasingly disinterested with the question.

So. What to do? Screw the industry. Screw CDs.. I’m tossing them in the pile with my DAT tapes..

At least when you download something illegally you know you’re a criminal. Making it next to impossible for people to know what’s legal and what’s not legal when it comes to copyright law is just frustrating and stupid and it’s going to drive more customers away.

…

In other news, England is legalizing CD backups!