The Globe and Mail, Monday July 21, 2008
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080721.wfarms21/BNStory/National/home
The idea of using cow manure for fuel is not a new one. Haven’t we all seen video clips of people in developing nations making cow patties to burn so as to cook the family meal? However, the idea of using cow manure to create electricity is amazing to me. And to make it even better, it sounds like it is a promising endeavour that could actually work in the long run as well as the short term. The initial project in Ilderton, ON seems to be working quite well and has the support of the Ontario government as well as the University of Western Ontario. There are also projects in Germany that are doing well also. I may be just too excited about this as I have just finished the article but this could be the answer to all our problems.
The world has been going crazy about oil and trying to make renewable greener energy for a few years now. Canada has not been so crazy about this as we have the tar sands in Alberta but we have still been upset about the environmental damage, or at least some of us have. Ethanol has been the latest craze in this whirlwind but it has its price, literally. Food prices have been rising for a number of reasons around the world and the use of corn for ethanol instead of food is one of these. Can you imagine if we could find a sustainable way to use a waste product for electricity? If the Stanton farm and the projects in Germany are really as good as I hope they are, we may have found it.
Manure is a renewable resource for sure and except for fertilizer its not really needed for anything. Turning it into electricity would help the farmers get rid of their extra manure as well as help our energy consumption. The article does talk about it not being economically feasible for smaller farms but nothing is economically feasible for the smaller organizations in the beginning. Hopefully with more research and time this could be the energy producer of the future.
I know there have got to be more problems that will need to be worked out and we are a long way off from using manure as our primary source of electricity but that does not diminish my excitement for the possibilities this brings up.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Government Protection or Representation?
The Toronto Star, Saturday July 19, 2008
http://www.thestar.com/article/460704
The Conservative government’s intended bill to get tough on crime and increase minimum sentencing is one of the most dim-witted bills in a long time. The American example has shown that increasing sentencing does not decrease crime so why is the government introducing a bill that intends to do just that? They want to be seen as a government that is tough on crime but they are just wasting tax payers money.
Experts say that increasing minimum sentencing is not the answer to decreasing crime, early intervention is. If the way to decrease crime is known, then why doesn’t the government spend its money on that instead of building new prison facilities? It would be a much better use of the money.
I think the government is choosing this path because it knows that it can get public support right away instead of educating the public about the issue. 76% of Canadians support this bill but to me, this just increases my belief in the stupidity of masses of people. No one who knows anything about the criminal justice system supports this bill and yet the government is still proposing it instead of protecting its constituents. I guess it really comes down to the question of what is more important for the government to do; represent or protect the people? In this case I really wish it would choose protection.
One thing that really upsets me is a quote in this article from Stephan Harper saying that the criminal justice system “has been moving in the wrong direction for 30 years”. Then why has crime been decreasing with the overall crime rate down 27% in 2006; a 25 year low! Yes, Harper is being told by the Canadian people that he needs to lower crime rates but this bill will do the exact opposite.
http://www.thestar.com/article/460704
The Conservative government’s intended bill to get tough on crime and increase minimum sentencing is one of the most dim-witted bills in a long time. The American example has shown that increasing sentencing does not decrease crime so why is the government introducing a bill that intends to do just that? They want to be seen as a government that is tough on crime but they are just wasting tax payers money.
Experts say that increasing minimum sentencing is not the answer to decreasing crime, early intervention is. If the way to decrease crime is known, then why doesn’t the government spend its money on that instead of building new prison facilities? It would be a much better use of the money.
I think the government is choosing this path because it knows that it can get public support right away instead of educating the public about the issue. 76% of Canadians support this bill but to me, this just increases my belief in the stupidity of masses of people. No one who knows anything about the criminal justice system supports this bill and yet the government is still proposing it instead of protecting its constituents. I guess it really comes down to the question of what is more important for the government to do; represent or protect the people? In this case I really wish it would choose protection.
One thing that really upsets me is a quote in this article from Stephan Harper saying that the criminal justice system “has been moving in the wrong direction for 30 years”. Then why has crime been decreasing with the overall crime rate down 27% in 2006; a 25 year low! Yes, Harper is being told by the Canadian people that he needs to lower crime rates but this bill will do the exact opposite.
The City of Kitchener to Become More Transparent
The Record, Tuesday July 15, 2008
http://news.therecord.com/article/383454
The city of Kitchener is looking into introducing new appointments to make its council more transparent with regards to donations as well as deal with citizens who have a grievance and keep the public aware of what is going on. They have been looking into changes since there were changes in the Ontario Municipal Act.
Mayor Carl Zehr believes that all 6 positions are not necessary due to the size of the city. He suggests that instead they only hire an integrity commissioner who works for a stipend and would only investigate specific complaints. This is a start but only a very basic one. I mean really, if there is enough of a problem, or even a perceived problem to have an integrity commissioner in the first place shouldn’t they not only investigate specifics but also nip it in the bud and find and fix the problems before they happen or get worse? Why settle for damage control when you can be preventative?
Another part of the transparency vote is about declaring gifts and favours. This part of the debate deals with how large a gift/favour has to be before it is necessary to declare. Some people feel like the proposed amounts of less that $500 at one time and less them $5000 a year isn’t good enough. It doesn’t really sound like a lot of money when you think of the large budget that councilors need to run the city but shouldn’t all gifts/favours be declared? I mean, again, if you are going to care at all why are you only caring a little bit or only about certain things?
I know that it would be a lot of extra paper work and therefore extra money needed for supplies and wages but if councilors are actually interested in keeping the public informed and appearing accountable then it has to do more than just pretend. The whole reason behind declaring any gift/favour is so that people can see if some people or organizations are giving quite a bit and possibly getting preferential treatment. If you want to get around the rules there will always be a way, however, if I can think of an easy way off the top of my head to get around the proposed rules such as giving just under $500 in different names then councilors should probably try and make it a little bit more difficult than that. If all donations had to be declared it would be much easier to find out who is trying to get through these loopholes and put a stop to it.
http://news.therecord.com/article/383454
The city of Kitchener is looking into introducing new appointments to make its council more transparent with regards to donations as well as deal with citizens who have a grievance and keep the public aware of what is going on. They have been looking into changes since there were changes in the Ontario Municipal Act.
Mayor Carl Zehr believes that all 6 positions are not necessary due to the size of the city. He suggests that instead they only hire an integrity commissioner who works for a stipend and would only investigate specific complaints. This is a start but only a very basic one. I mean really, if there is enough of a problem, or even a perceived problem to have an integrity commissioner in the first place shouldn’t they not only investigate specifics but also nip it in the bud and find and fix the problems before they happen or get worse? Why settle for damage control when you can be preventative?
Another part of the transparency vote is about declaring gifts and favours. This part of the debate deals with how large a gift/favour has to be before it is necessary to declare. Some people feel like the proposed amounts of less that $500 at one time and less them $5000 a year isn’t good enough. It doesn’t really sound like a lot of money when you think of the large budget that councilors need to run the city but shouldn’t all gifts/favours be declared? I mean, again, if you are going to care at all why are you only caring a little bit or only about certain things?
I know that it would be a lot of extra paper work and therefore extra money needed for supplies and wages but if councilors are actually interested in keeping the public informed and appearing accountable then it has to do more than just pretend. The whole reason behind declaring any gift/favour is so that people can see if some people or organizations are giving quite a bit and possibly getting preferential treatment. If you want to get around the rules there will always be a way, however, if I can think of an easy way off the top of my head to get around the proposed rules such as giving just under $500 in different names then councilors should probably try and make it a little bit more difficult than that. If all donations had to be declared it would be much easier to find out who is trying to get through these loopholes and put a stop to it.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
A Chance for a Greener Ontario
The Record, Friday July 11, 2008
http://news.therecord.com/article/381731
When a person’s livelihood is uncertain they often get scared and angry at the government. This means that during times of economic insecurity the opposition, to be the voice of the people, must ask the government what it is doing about the economy and bring up things that the governing party is doing that the opposition believes isn’t helping.
As the manufacturing sector in Ontario is uncertain, the Conservatives are currently questioning the Liberals plans to help the Ontario economy. As the Liberals are off on trade missions to places like Paris and California, the rest of the government would like them back in Ontario doing things here.
My question is what would they like to see being done? Yes, the fact that the manufacturing sector is being hit hard is a troubling one, yet as the article states, most of the reasons for this are out of governmental control. The Ontario government has no control over the price of oil, the main reason for the changes in the economy. The government cannot afford to put more money into the manufacturing sector especially automotive manufacturing because they are doing so poorly and without help that is unlikely to change.
It is so obvious. The increase in the price of oil drives up the price of gas which makes people think twice about buying a new vehicle, especially a gas guzzler. Other manufacturing companies are deteriorating because they are having a harder time paying for the transportation of their products.
To me, there is an obvious way for the government to help out the manufacturing sector, if they choose to. By investing in new greener, technology, the government can help the automotive sector switch over to a new, cheaper source of energy which would then lead to a decrease in the price of transporting goods, helping out all manufacturing businesses. This would also help Canada become a more environmentally friendly place, which is a big deal to many people right now. It’s a win-win situation.
http://news.therecord.com/article/381731
When a person’s livelihood is uncertain they often get scared and angry at the government. This means that during times of economic insecurity the opposition, to be the voice of the people, must ask the government what it is doing about the economy and bring up things that the governing party is doing that the opposition believes isn’t helping.
As the manufacturing sector in Ontario is uncertain, the Conservatives are currently questioning the Liberals plans to help the Ontario economy. As the Liberals are off on trade missions to places like Paris and California, the rest of the government would like them back in Ontario doing things here.
My question is what would they like to see being done? Yes, the fact that the manufacturing sector is being hit hard is a troubling one, yet as the article states, most of the reasons for this are out of governmental control. The Ontario government has no control over the price of oil, the main reason for the changes in the economy. The government cannot afford to put more money into the manufacturing sector especially automotive manufacturing because they are doing so poorly and without help that is unlikely to change.
It is so obvious. The increase in the price of oil drives up the price of gas which makes people think twice about buying a new vehicle, especially a gas guzzler. Other manufacturing companies are deteriorating because they are having a harder time paying for the transportation of their products.
To me, there is an obvious way for the government to help out the manufacturing sector, if they choose to. By investing in new greener, technology, the government can help the automotive sector switch over to a new, cheaper source of energy which would then lead to a decrease in the price of transporting goods, helping out all manufacturing businesses. This would also help Canada become a more environmentally friendly place, which is a big deal to many people right now. It’s a win-win situation.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Abortion Still Divisive in Canada
The Record, Wednesday July 2, 2008
http://news.therecord.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/376451
The abortion controversy is back in headlines this week with the announcement that Dr. Henry Morgentaler is among those Canadians receiving the Order of Canada. As Terry Pedwell outlines in his article, not all Canadians are happy about this. Dr. Morgentaler opened an abortion clinic while they were still illegal in Canada and it was because of his court case that they became legal. While supporters of both sides argue over the kind of message giving Dr. Morgentaler the Order of Canada gives Harper and his government “were quick to distance itself from the decision.” This was a very good idea on their part since no matter what they say, they will upset many Canadians.
The abortion debate can get quite heated and brings out strong feelings in many people. I really am not one of them. I have my opinions of course and I would be upset if the law stopped reflecting them, but at the same time I can understand the views of both sides. I am personally happy that Dr. Morgentaler fought the law and made abortion legal in Canada. Now please don’t think I am a baby killer or something horrible like that, but think about it rationally. There are going to be women who get abortions whether they are legal or not; there are also going to be women who choose not to get an abortion whether they are legal or not. At least if abortions are legal then women can receive them safely with proper medical care instead of with “a folding table and a rusty knife” or however the line goes in Dirty Dancing. I think a better way to dissuade women from getting abortions is to educate them instead of outlawing it. Knowing what actually happens in an abortion and how far along the baby is, what different body parts are distinguishable or forming would give the woman a chance for an informed decision as well as the chance to figure out if it is right for her.
Pedwell quotes two women from different sides of the argument about whether or not they think Dr. Morgentaler should have received this honour or not. The opposing woman, Joanne McGarry, believes that the award should go to someone who represents something not so divisive in Canada. This is a good point however, are you ever going to get all Canadians to agree? We are a diverse society with different points of view and I really doubt we will ever fully agree on anything especially something so polarizing as abortion. Whether people agree about the ethical nature of it, Dr. Morgentaler did put Canada on the map as the “only western democracy with no criminal sanctions of any kind against abortion.” So the question then becomes what is the Order of Canada supposed to award? A Canadian who was loved by all or a Canadian who saw a problem and worked for change?
http://news.therecord.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/376451
The abortion controversy is back in headlines this week with the announcement that Dr. Henry Morgentaler is among those Canadians receiving the Order of Canada. As Terry Pedwell outlines in his article, not all Canadians are happy about this. Dr. Morgentaler opened an abortion clinic while they were still illegal in Canada and it was because of his court case that they became legal. While supporters of both sides argue over the kind of message giving Dr. Morgentaler the Order of Canada gives Harper and his government “were quick to distance itself from the decision.” This was a very good idea on their part since no matter what they say, they will upset many Canadians.
The abortion debate can get quite heated and brings out strong feelings in many people. I really am not one of them. I have my opinions of course and I would be upset if the law stopped reflecting them, but at the same time I can understand the views of both sides. I am personally happy that Dr. Morgentaler fought the law and made abortion legal in Canada. Now please don’t think I am a baby killer or something horrible like that, but think about it rationally. There are going to be women who get abortions whether they are legal or not; there are also going to be women who choose not to get an abortion whether they are legal or not. At least if abortions are legal then women can receive them safely with proper medical care instead of with “a folding table and a rusty knife” or however the line goes in Dirty Dancing. I think a better way to dissuade women from getting abortions is to educate them instead of outlawing it. Knowing what actually happens in an abortion and how far along the baby is, what different body parts are distinguishable or forming would give the woman a chance for an informed decision as well as the chance to figure out if it is right for her.
Pedwell quotes two women from different sides of the argument about whether or not they think Dr. Morgentaler should have received this honour or not. The opposing woman, Joanne McGarry, believes that the award should go to someone who represents something not so divisive in Canada. This is a good point however, are you ever going to get all Canadians to agree? We are a diverse society with different points of view and I really doubt we will ever fully agree on anything especially something so polarizing as abortion. Whether people agree about the ethical nature of it, Dr. Morgentaler did put Canada on the map as the “only western democracy with no criminal sanctions of any kind against abortion.” So the question then becomes what is the Order of Canada supposed to award? A Canadian who was loved by all or a Canadian who saw a problem and worked for change?
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Carbon Tax A Unifying Front?
The Record Friday June 27, 2008
http://news.therecord.com/article/374263
This weekend I read an article in The Record entitled A Changing Canada Seems Receptive to Carbon Tax seeing as it has been talked about so much lately, I figured I should see what the author had to say. I was surprised to read more about the state of Canada as a nation than the carbon tax itself. Richard Gwyn writes about how Canadians are not getting angry about the proposed carbon tax. He believes that this is the case because tax payers get part or all of the tax back but more importantly because “it’s a pan-Canadian program”. Gwyn then goes on to describe how Canada has become a series of provinces instead of one nation.
This article sparked my interest for a number of reasons. First off simply because I am also taking ECON 102 with Larry Smith and he explained in one of his lectures that Canadians don’t mind paying taxes as much as our American counterparts and I like it when things in my classes coincide with things outside of class and things in other classes, it makes what I am learning about seem relevant.
The second reason I was interested in this article was that it kind of made me mad. I mean, I really liked what Gwyn was talking about and it made a lot of sense, but since when is Canada just 10 provinces? What about the 3 territories too? He talks about the unity of the nation but then leaves out 3 members of that nation. I feel that this kind of thing happens a lot. Am I missing something here? Are the territories really not a part of Canada? Or are they a semi-part or something? I’m confused. The way I see it, their lack of population or economic resources make some people think they don’t count. That’s just stupid, just because an area has problems doesn’t mean it doesn’t count, it means that it needs help.
The final reason that I was interested in this article, and the reason why I thought it would work really well for this blog is because it discusses the way that Canada has become broken. How it is no longer one but many. This makes me sad, I don’t really have a good argument as to why Canada should stay together; strong and united, I just feel that it should. I mean one of the reasons I love Canada is because of the differences that are represented. I mean you go from one province (or territory) to another and you can see the most incredible differences. Flat prairies, high mountains, seas, tundra, anything you want. I believe that our differences make us stronger. Sometime this term, I can’t remember for sure what class, I learned that the ability of a country to sustain itself on its own resources is an incredible thing. Canada can do this because of its diversity and not only can it sustain itself but it can have some fun with it, I mean who really wants to eat only one kind of food? Diversity does have its problems as we learned from our lecture on tensions within Canada’s borders. Everyone wants their problems to be top priority and people don’t always understand another’s point of view but seeing as Canada is known for its acceptance of differences shouldn’t that include geographical ones? As we prepare to celebrate Canada Day on Tuesday I think we should also prepare to take steps towards becoming more unified, even if that means another tax.
http://news.therecord.com/article/374263
This weekend I read an article in The Record entitled A Changing Canada Seems Receptive to Carbon Tax seeing as it has been talked about so much lately, I figured I should see what the author had to say. I was surprised to read more about the state of Canada as a nation than the carbon tax itself. Richard Gwyn writes about how Canadians are not getting angry about the proposed carbon tax. He believes that this is the case because tax payers get part or all of the tax back but more importantly because “it’s a pan-Canadian program”. Gwyn then goes on to describe how Canada has become a series of provinces instead of one nation.
This article sparked my interest for a number of reasons. First off simply because I am also taking ECON 102 with Larry Smith and he explained in one of his lectures that Canadians don’t mind paying taxes as much as our American counterparts and I like it when things in my classes coincide with things outside of class and things in other classes, it makes what I am learning about seem relevant.
The second reason I was interested in this article was that it kind of made me mad. I mean, I really liked what Gwyn was talking about and it made a lot of sense, but since when is Canada just 10 provinces? What about the 3 territories too? He talks about the unity of the nation but then leaves out 3 members of that nation. I feel that this kind of thing happens a lot. Am I missing something here? Are the territories really not a part of Canada? Or are they a semi-part or something? I’m confused. The way I see it, their lack of population or economic resources make some people think they don’t count. That’s just stupid, just because an area has problems doesn’t mean it doesn’t count, it means that it needs help.
The final reason that I was interested in this article, and the reason why I thought it would work really well for this blog is because it discusses the way that Canada has become broken. How it is no longer one but many. This makes me sad, I don’t really have a good argument as to why Canada should stay together; strong and united, I just feel that it should. I mean one of the reasons I love Canada is because of the differences that are represented. I mean you go from one province (or territory) to another and you can see the most incredible differences. Flat prairies, high mountains, seas, tundra, anything you want. I believe that our differences make us stronger. Sometime this term, I can’t remember for sure what class, I learned that the ability of a country to sustain itself on its own resources is an incredible thing. Canada can do this because of its diversity and not only can it sustain itself but it can have some fun with it, I mean who really wants to eat only one kind of food? Diversity does have its problems as we learned from our lecture on tensions within Canada’s borders. Everyone wants their problems to be top priority and people don’t always understand another’s point of view but seeing as Canada is known for its acceptance of differences shouldn’t that include geographical ones? As we prepare to celebrate Canada Day on Tuesday I think we should also prepare to take steps towards becoming more unified, even if that means another tax.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)