Powerful Fools are Dangerous Fools; Bring on the Wellerman [TPaS0]

 So,

It used to be that I wrote regularly.  Ideas would bounce around in my head, and the only way to get some respite was to put my thoughts in writing.  It would seem that as I've aged and achieved more meaningful work that I have less mental real estate for writing, and the ideas that bounce around my head are technical and not as good for a broad audience.  I still think Rh could make for a good internal standard for ICP-OES, but that's another topic for another day.

So as it gets farther between posts, the world changes, and my life changes, I'm not sure there's as much purpose for a blog like this.  I care, and agree, so much less with what I've written in the past (particularly my attitudes towards proper citation, jeez).  Much of what I've written now strikes me as having been written by a younger, more naive man.  But then January 2021 happens, and I know that writing will help.

2016 was a rough year for me.  I watched two improbable back-to-back elections that reflected a world and a mindset that I didn't know existed.  The Brexit election was followed by Trump's election and the "alt right" was either born or emboldened.  I saw neither coming.  

"Why," I asked, "would the UK separate from an organization that creates and enforces the trade rules that the UK will necessarily be governed by?  Why voluntarily surrender votes in an organization that governs your largest trading partners?"

Well, why does anyone do anything?

Britons were tired of listening to experts.  They wanted to fund the NHS instead of the EU, so much so, that they wrote it on a bus.  And strangest of all, people I knew and whose opinions I deeply respect agreed.  I heard that it was about time, and they'd been getting shafted for years.

It was also in this period immediately following the Brexit vote that we found ourselves at the beginning of a four year slog.  The morning after, the day of the video linked above, suddenly the rhetoric from people like Farage softened.  Prime Minister after Prime Minister fell, as did every attempted deal, until finally. Finally.  They reached a deal that the EU could accept, which maintained most of what the EU wanted, because they were by far the Goliath in the trade negotiations.  Meanwhile, r/leopardsatemyface was brought to my attention, where people relished in the schadenfreude of those who proclaimed "this isn't the Brexit I voted for!"

The Brexit deal many didn't vote for. "Prime Minister Boris Johnson signs the Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union" by UK Prime Minister is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

To be clear, I think the UK will be all right in the longer term.  Right now there are shortages of fresh vegetables on shelves, truckers are facing massive border delays, and fortunes will be accrued and lost as a new reality imposes itself.  But people will live, love, and die just as they always have.  It's just a sudden, and baffling change.

Meanwhile...

"Donald Trump Rally 10/21/16" by Michael Candelori Photography is licensed under CC BY 2.0

The Trump election was unexpected, but not ruled out by the best pollsters.  Five thirty eight described the narrow path that would need to be navigated to win the electoral college, and, as the night wore on, every state he needed was won by the Republicans.

I wasn't happy about the rhetoric, or the track record of Trump the businessman, but I thought that the Republican braintrust would surround him and keep him out of trouble.  What worried me was the elements of society that were emboldened.  Posters were seen in Toronto that set off alarm bells in my mind.  Rachel Notley and Catherine McKenna faced death threats.  All it seems to take is economic hardship and a leader who tells you whom to blame.

And despite a presidency where his approval rating could never reliably breach the 50% ceiling, an insurrectionist mob eventually marched on the US Capitol with the objective of overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election.  They were fuelled by their thought leaders spewing mistruths that didn't hold up to scrutiny.  They were fuelled by a conspiracy theory whose mouthpieces, when nothing panned out, told them to basically remember all the friends they'd made along the way.

It happened because rhetoric has consequences.

"Doug Ford Getting Grilled After a Debate" by Alex Guibord is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0

And let's not forget this guy.  During the second and deadlist wave (so far, I guess), of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Ford offered nothing but rhetoric.  Concerned about the health of businesses, he allowed local lockdowns to be to solution as case counts continued to rise from October of 2020 into the end of the year.  Even as it became clear that people were leaving locked down areas in order to do their holiday shopping.  And finally, after the case count was fully out of control and ICU capacity was threatened, Ford announced that urgent action was needed (on December 21st), and that the province would lock down after Christmas.  

Because when a pandemic is threatening the capacity of your health care system, it's important to give people a 5 day window to get their shopping and holiday gatherings in.

As cases continued to climb, because of course they did, Ford offered the ferocity of an 800-lb gorilla, lauded the success of curfews in other jurisdictions while saying he wouldn't enforce one despite everything being "on the table".

I don't envy having those decisions to make, and Ford has stated that he's trying to keep businesses afloat, but people are dead because of the lack of province-wide restrictions.  A reluctance to close businesses has led to case counts so high that they'll be forced closed for an indefinite period.  I'll let that sink in.

The common thread here: powerful fools are dangerous fools.  Our time has become harder than it needs to be because politicians overestimated their ability, underestimated the importance of experts (you know, the people who dedicate their lives to understanding things), and in one case, were elected without putting forward a costed platform.  

As a brief aside, let's just remember that it was a platform that included a court challenge to the federal carbon tax. A challenge to oppose the Federal government's authority to levy a tax on its citizens. God, how I miss a time when that was the biggest issue in the news.

If we truly want to strive for a better future, we need to think critically about what politicians tell us, think critically about the news and the facts we consume, and we desperately need to ensure that our institutions are able to withstand the onslaught of powerful fools.  Roman institutions withstood Nero, Caligula, and Commodus, (just to name a few), and staved off the only thing worse than a tyrant: a power vaccuum.  We may need our minds and our institutions to weather similar.

*  *  *

So!

I have long disliked think-pieces.  It's the ramblings of any given mind, shrouded in enough nonsense and polysyllabic words to lend an air of credence.  Granted, it yields clicks, enough attention for ad revenue, but is ultimately masturbatory from an intellectual standpoint.  And I've wanted to write a few intentionally stupid ones for a while now.  My own brand of stupid nonsense follows, the 0th edition of 'Think Pieces are Stupid'.

Like many of you, a little under 20 days ago, I came across the video from this post.  It follows the progression from skepticism to full embrace of The Wellerman by The Longest Johns.  It has since taken the world by storm. But why?

For an answer, we'll turn to the lyrics, and see that the song is about 2020.  An early verse starts:

    She had not been two weeks from shore,

    When down on her a right whale bore...

We hadn't been in 2020 that long (well, China was already in it by then), when down on us bore the right whale that is the pandemic.  But in response:

    The Captain called all hands and swore,

    He'd take that whale in tow (Hah!)

Our leaders (and we, more broadly), swore that we would fight the pandemic, that we would eradicate it.  No matter how expertly formed the grooves in our couches would need to be, we committed to it.  Not just for fun or sport, but in response to a virus that threatened about 2% of the 70% or so of us that experts estimated would be infected.  The verse closes with the singers collectively denoting their enthusiasm for the cause, just as we all did in March.

But the fight continued, and continues.

    For forty days, or even more,

    The line went slack, then tight once more,

    All boats were lost, there were only four,

    But still that whale did go (Hah!)

Forty days in biblical/older language refers to "a long time," and indeed, it's been going for a good long while.  The lines went slack in the summer in Canada, when case counts were low, but it's definitely tight as the pandemic rages through the two most populous provinces, and with continued news of riots abroad.

    As far as I've heard, the fight's still on;

    The line's not cut and the whale's not gone,

    The Wellerman makes his regular call,

    To encourage the Captain, crew, and all.

And this is where we find ourselves.  COVID-19 is not gone, we're still warned that there might be bouts of civil unrest, the fight is indeed still on.  But who is the Wellerman referenced?  The answer is in the chorus.

    Soon may the Wellerman come,

    To bring us sugar, and tea, and rum,

    One day when the tonguin' is done,

    We'll take our leave and go.

Supply ships owned by the Weller Brothers (based in New Zealand), would presumably supply whaling ships in the Pacific.  And sugar, tea, and rum are certainly welcomed by tired people, let alone sailors.  Tonguing was some of the earliest butchering done to a whale once it was brought to shore.  But only after the whale has been taken in tow, a promise made earlier in the song.

And that's where we are, and what we're doing.  We're waiting for supplies of good news, of vaccines, of calm, of normalcy.  One day, one day that seems so far away from us right now, on the day of the eradication of COVID-19, we can rest.  Perhaps even a day when dangerous fools no longer pervade the news and our screens. That's the day upon which we'll take our leave of this madness.

Until then we welcome all the sugar, tea, and rum we can get.

Until then, The Wellerman shall be our anthem.

-NM

Bank fees are killing your retirement savings.

So,

For a long time now I've been on at least one podcast, and I've had an outlet for all my creative energy.  With the hiatus of Future Chat and East Meets West (this one is admittedly self-imposed), I suppose the time is now to get my thoughts written out so I can stop pestering those around me.

I want to start here by thanking both Planet Money and John Oliver, because listening to Brilliant vs. Boring and Retirement Plans will probably have saved me a couple hundred thousand dollars by the time I'm ready to retire.  Feel free to ditch this post in order to go and check those out, because it's far more enticing than text.

It was actually this past year that I was forced to start an RRSP, and that's when I dipped my toes into the wild world of retirement savings.  I asked about what my friends and co-workers were doing. What I learned was that the threat of fees is not at all common knowledge, and there are equally common misconceptions about the financial advisers that your bank probably offers.

In order to be as clear as possible, I want to go through a few points with you:

Your financial adviser is a sales person.

I once lived with a financial adviser.  Her university background was in the arts, and she took a course offered through her bank in order to be certified to sell mutual funds to her clients.  It was a good job for her.  She was friendly, multilingual, and she was able to afford a nice place in Calgary.

It's often assumed that your financial adviser went to school for business or economics, and is highly trained in these matters.  But they're not.  A bank has sales targets much like a retail store does, it's just the amount of money changing hands is much higher.  And the advice you'll receive is pretty easy to predict, depending on your situation.  In fact, many financial advisers will follow along with an automated process (generated by the bank they work for), in order to figure out what product to recommend to you.  In the case of some banks, they're looking at foregoing the meat bag adviser class altogether and just offering you the advice of the algorithm.

Fees are eating into your savings.

Now, since the bank needs both money for its investors and its workers, all this advice comes with a cost.  It's not a cost you'll be charged up front, or you'd notice as a deduction.  It's usually expressed as a Management Expense Ratio (MER), somewhere on the fact sheet for the mutual fund or portfolio you've chosen.  In the case of Canadian banks, they've probably generated a few index funds, then packaged together those funds in some proportion to create a balanced portfolio.

Quick aside: What's an index fund?  An index tracks something, you've probably heard of the S&P500 for the US market, or the TSX60 for the Canadian stock market.  An index fund just owns the stocks which constitute the index, and it's usually a better strategy than trying to beat, or outperform, the market.  I won't get into how that works here, you should just listen to Brilliant vs. Boring.

So those portfolios, in Canadian banks anyway, will probably come with a MER of roughly 2% on the discounted side of things.  It doesn't sound like much, but that's 2% of your entire savings every year, whether the value goes up or down.  That's right.  If the market takes a dive, the bank still collects its 2% on your money. 

There is a way around this.  Vanguard, effectively a financial co-op, offers a MER of 0.05% for its Canadian stock market index fund, and a little higher for its bond market index (there are other options in this price range, though they are not a co-operative structure).  If you're willing to do a couple hours (max), worth of learning, and perform the trades yourself once a year (and it's best not to touch it more than once or twice a year), you save 1.95% (minus about $10-$25 per trade, which is trivial for a fully funded retirement savings portfolio).  And I'll grant, 1.95% doesn't sound like much to have someone else deal with it for you, but let me present the difference that makes.  I'm assuming you've simply invested in the Canadian stock market, which returns an average of 7% or so per year, and you've decided to put aside $400 a month:

Years passed	Low Fees (DIY)	Bank Fees	Difference
0	$5,106.86	$5,040.00	$66.86
5	$40,553.68	$37,063.22	$3,490.46
10	$90,153.62	$77,933.86	$12,219.76
15	$159,557.71	$130,096.30	$29,461.41
20	$256,673.32	$196,670.27	$60,003.05
25	$392,565.04	$281,637.40	$110,927.64
30	$582,715.31	$390,079.37	$192,635.93
35	$848,788.35	$528,481.87	$320,306.48
40	$1,221,098.45	$705,122.43	$515,976.03
45	$1,742,063.72	$930,565.51	$811,498.21

(I don't think the math is spot on here, but you get the idea)

In my case, I have about 30 some years to retirement, and the difference between self-management and bank fees is in the ballpark of over $200,000.  That's a lot of poutine.  It's probably living expenses for a few years, or a nice charitable donation once I've kicked the bucket.  If somehow you've been saving that much for 45 years, you could almost double what your savings with the bank would have been.

Don't try to beat the market.

...Unless you have a nice, stable, juicy pension.  Then have at 'er, it could be a lot of fun.  But if you're counting on the money being there, one company going bust could take a big chunk of your savings (Nortel, Enron, I'm looking at you), or you're paying too much in trading fees (which might be disguised as management fees).  Again, the Planet Money episode "Brilliant vs. Boring" does a great job of explaining this.

Don't be too conservative too early.

Granted, you'll want to really load up on bonds when you're getting close to retirement, or if you're saving and think you might need the money soon.  Bonds tend to fluctuate much less than stocks.  They also tend to go the opposite way of stocks, so they went up during the crisis in 2008, and they have been on the decline during the recent good years of the market.  But for the love of God, don't load up on them early in your saving years, because then you're sacrificing a lot of growth.  This is particularly true if you're in a fund-of-funds bank portfolio, where the MER represents the total of the return from your bonds.  Yes, Shaggy, I'm talking about you, and now the whole world knows that your portfolio is over-exposed in bonds.  How embarrassing for you.

Jack Bogle, for what it's worth, invented the index fund.  His adherents recommend owning your age as a percentage share in bonds.  That way you'll have a nice reliable amount of money when you're ready to retire, but have good income when you're younger.  I'm sure they'd also recommend VCN and VAB, traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

So there you have it.  The secret to robust retirement savings.  I'll accept payment in hearty handshakes, and visits to your retirement mansions that you purchased with your saved fees.

You may also feel free to feed me.

-NM

Paralyzed by Fear. [Creative Writing]

He froze.

He had always heard that time seems to slow in a crisis, in a life-and-death situation, but he hadn't experienced it until now.  He felt his pulse quicken, his breath become short, and noticed a shift in the lighting as his pupils dilated.

He had always loved his home city, the Festival City, Alberta's Capital City, The City of Champions.  But now instead of looking orderly and neat, the brutalist architecture seemed to be closing in on him, suffocating him, arresting his ability to move freely.

A chill fell over him as the car's once comfortable air conditioning met with his cold sweat.  At the same time, the world appeared to have frozen.  Nobody moved, cars idling, feet pressed hard on the brake pedal lest one move too quickly and become the snowflake which causes the avalanche.

They say that the difference between a mass of angry people and a riot can come down to one action.  Everyone will stand around until they hear glass shatter, until a smoke bomb hits, until a punch is thrown.  It is these tense moments which decide whether the morning will see peace, or the wake of an angry mob.

He strained his eyes, knowing that at some point he had heard of this exact scenario.  Some far off, distant memory that warps into vague flashes of recollection.  Grade school?  No.  A stern warning from his parents?  No, that couldn't be it.  A sermon told once upon a time?  Maybe.

His head cleared as adrenaline coursed through his veins, and he made his decision to act.  He edged the car forward.  Arcing slowly and deliberately to the left into what appeared to be an opening in the periphery of his vision; he didn't dare to take his eyes off of the horror that lay in front of him.

Clearing the standoff, he started to speed away, relaxing his now-noticeably white knuckles, and letting out a deep but quivering sigh.  In the back of his mind, he was wracked by the feeling he had somehow made a Faustian deal, but decided it would be worth seeing his family at least one more time.

He didn't know what demonic force had caused the traffic sign to display a green, left-pointing arrow, but he was glad it was over.  Mercifully, it was over.

Driving a lot in Edmonton recently,
NM

My preferred voting system for Canada.

An Elections Canada sample ballot.  Source.

So,

I'm going to start by saying that this one's for you, Jeff.  It's late, but it's still for you.

Given that there's been a seismic shift in Canadian politics since the last federal election, I'd like to talk about a choice that the governing Liberals will be faced with in the next year or so, if their campaign promises are to be believed.  Justin Trudeau has promised that this will have been the last election under the First Past the Post (FPTP) system, and that a new method will be decided upon after broad consultations.

Now, I'm not going to try and explain the main contenders for voting systems out there, because not only has CGP Grey already done that, he has done it better than I could hope to do with his Politics in the Animal Kingdom series.  While they're all videos worth watching, I'd recommend checking out at the very least the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), Alternative/Instant Runoff (IR), and Single Transferable Vote (STV), videos for the purposes of this discussion.

In the last several elections, the FPTP system has delivered rather wild results.  In fact, the last two majority governments were decided by roughly 40% of the population.  Pundits may endlessly analyse this, looking at voting efficiency numbers (votes cast/seats won), but honestly, it's a consequence of the system.  The biggest weaknesses of FPTP are widely seen to be the spoiler effect and strategic voting in general.

It could be argued that in the Conservative Party's wins of the new millennium, the centre-left parties played spoiler to one another.  Were there just one left-leaning party, the majority of voters would have likely backed said hypothetical party, and that would have been the end of it.  However, the similar yet different platforms which were supported by the majority of the country split the vote and yielded a majority of seats in the House of Commons to the Tories.

Now let's look at the election of 2015 specifically.  It is widely suspected that the majority win by the Grits was the result of strategic voting.  Electors who favoured the NDP (Dippers?) wanted Harper to lose more than they wanted Tom Mulcair to win.  In the end, what we saw in the polls was a spectacular shift of support from the NDP to the Grits, and in the end, many voted not for the person they wanted to win, but rather for someone they kind of, sort of liked such that the person they really didn't like wouldn't win.

That's why I think we need a change in our electoral systems.  That said, I have obvious preferences.  Proportional Representation (PR) would simply tally the votes, and award seats in the House of Commons accordingly.  MMP, similarly, would allow electors to directly send candidates to the House, but would add members ("list members" from lists submitted by the parties), until the seat count more closely resembled the popular vote.  It sounds great, but my problem with these methods (and the reason that I didn't support MMP in the Ontario referendum), is that I do not care for the idea of list members.  Ultimately, I want each Member of Parliament to be responsible to his or her home electorate.  Frankly, having been served by back benchers (read: Parliamentarians who support their Party's motions and do little else), for the majority of my lifetime, I don't think the system needs more MPs who are beholden only to their parties and not their direct electors.

It is due to my loathing of mindless partisan politicians that I support IR and STV in broad strokes.  What I really, desperately want is the ability to rank the options on the ballot rather than simply marking my X (aside: I'd also like the option to rank only those candidates I like and then stop, rather than Australia's model of forcing a ranking of all candidates).

Now, this model has been widely criticized by opposition MPs saying that this model would prefer centrist parties like the governing Liberals.  My obvious rebuttal being to draw attention to the 2011 election, in which the Liberals were so desperately unpopular after a series of scandals and missteps that they were reduced to their lowest seat count in the history of Confederation.  My point being that centrist parties won't always remain a favourable option to the majority of Canadians.

But, digressions aside, I like the IR model quite a lot.  I like the ability to say that I prefer the Greens over the Libertarians, or the Dippers over the Tories, or an Independent over the incumbent.  And I also want to retain the ability to send a message to representatives that I feel have not served the citizens my riding well enough.  And, if one watches the video featuring the mechanics of it all, IR ensures that the majority of the riding's electors will have directly voted for their representative whilst ensuring they also had the ability to vote true to their conscience.

Ultimately, what I like about IR is also what I like about STV.  What I dislike about STV is the matter of the larger ridings, and how it is decided who is elected when multiple members of a single party are declared winners.  I might be mistaken, but when extra votes are allowed to go to support other candidates, I feel like those votes are not treated as equals (unless the total sum of second choices are considered, in which case it seems... less objectionable).  It seems messy, I suppose is my objection.  And, ironically, STV seems more deserving of the title "First Past the Post."

I suppose that this means I would endorse the ranked ballot as my preferred voting system.  And, in other, wilder pipe dreams, I think it would be tremendously entertaining to see the Tories acknowledge the rift within their party and split once again into the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties, and observe an IR election with a total of five national political parties.  I don't know how well it would serve Canadians in terms of the balance of ideas brought to the Lower Chamber, but man would it be fun to watch.

NM

P.S.  Published without proofreading, because I have to go to work.

P.P.S  Proofread, minor changes made.

Homelessness, and a Can of Soup. [EBP8]

Cans of soup produced to celebrate the anniversary of Warhol's painting.  Source.

So,

I was walking home this evening, and as one often does when walking the 1 St SW underpass, I passed a homeless man sitting with his back against the concrete walls.  Unlike most encounters though, there was no request for money, no witty remark, no blessings bestowed as I passed.  This man was looking helplessly at a can of soup.  It struck me that this would be an easy fix, save for the fact that nobody actually carries a can opener.  Well, perhaps people do, but they're likely not very much fun at parties.  Or, recalling a personal anecdote about a man who ate canned food for weeks on end to prove to his girlfriend that refrigerators were luxuries and not necessities, the most fun at parties.  It also struck me that there is a certain irony in that canned food would be of the utmost utility to the homeless, but in most cases they would be helpless to open said can.  Unless they're the sort of person that is either the most or least fun at parties.

In any case, I went home.  I ate the food I had brought home for myself.  And then I remembered the man without a can opener.  I grabbed the can opener from the kitchen as well as a disposable spoon.  They went into my pocket and I headed back to the man with the can.  As it turned out, the tab to open the can had broken off.  I did what I could, and despite thinking early on that it might have turned into a fruitless endeavour, the can was opened.  Near the end, I handed the man the spoon, saying that it might be of use if I actually succeeded.  He responded with a question:

"Oh man, a spoon too?  How are you doing so good?"

"I've been lucky." I replied without thinking.

And it's true.  I've been extremely lucky.  I was born to parents that did, and still do, love and care for me.  I've also come to know many people who have helped me, and continue to help me to this day.  I've also been spared the burden of mental illness, which so often factors into homelessness.  I am a citizen to whom a great many opportunities have been afforded.  And were it not for the kind and caring people in my life, I too could be sitting under the rail bridge at 1 St SW, completely stymied by the lack of a pull tab on a single serving can of soup.

It's due to this matter of luck that I am so excited about things like the Calgary Homeless Foundation, which offers homes to the homeless.  As it turns out, people don't generally like being homeless, and it's extremely difficult to keep a job when you have no place to keep your clothes or bathe on a day-to-day basis.  If you afford people these opportunities, they often find a job and move to a nicer place in fairly short order, if the literature is any indication.

Since my finding out about Calgary's program, the city of Medicine Hat has announced that they are the first Canadian municipality to end homelessness.  This follows data which suggested that housing someone for a year costs roughly $20,000, whereas they cost the system about $100,000 otherwise.  Everything I've heard on the matter suggests that the preliminary results are good, and as my fellows over at Future Chat agree, it seems only logical to offer programs like this if a) you'll save money in the long run, b) you could reap the benefits of economically active citizens in the future.  This ignores the whole humanitarian argument, which is hard to accomplish when people are concerned about budgets.

In the end, the evening left me thoughtful enough that I thought I would write about it, as much to sort out my own thoughts as to share them.  I wonder if such a program could come to my home town of Belleville, a home to a disproportionate number of Christian fundamentalists, and [not-necessarily related] big-C conservative sentiments (fiscal conservatism and small government being popular ideas).  I'm specifically thinking of a quotation from a statue in Ottawa that has always stuck with me, from Matthew 25:40 "That which you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me."  I'm also left with how I felt when leaving the man.  Despite his gratitude, I only felt terrible for having waited so long to offer such an easy fix.

-NM

P.S.  I have not blogged in a while.  A variety of factors, ennui playing a large factor I feel, have kept me from feeling passionately enough to write.  I subscribe to Matthew Inman's idea that one should not create without feeling inspired to do so, because the work will suffer as a result.  Hopefully the writing will continue, but even if it doesn't, we'll still have Future Chat.

Election 2015: Trudeau, the New Guy

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, who, in a shocking twist for this series, is not looking up and to the right.  Source.

So,

The final installment of the "Election 2015" series will be on Justin Trudeau, because I honestly do not believe that Elizabeth May will be our next Prime Minister.  I will not be talking about his father and legendary Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, because it is irrelevant to this conversation.  The man is not his father.  Shocking, I know.

My Summary:

First and foremost, I would like to publicly declare that I was disappointed when Trudeau won the Liberal leadership race.  I understand the decision for reasons I will outline later but Marc Garneau:

1) Had more political experience and is arguably more ready to be the leader of a country, and more importantly

2) IS AN ACTUAL, REAL-LIFE ASTRONAUT, AND WE COULD HAVE HAD AN ASTRONAUT PRIME MINISTER!

Ahem...

My impressions of Trudeau are largely limited, perhaps by design, and possibly because he really hasn't been on the scene in an official capacity for that long.  His reign as head of the Liberal Party of Canada, in its smallest incarnation in the history of the party, has been even shorter.  That said, there are a couple things worth noting.

First off, I started by saying that our impressions may be limited by design.  Since the Grits rehauled their image after what I will call the "death spiral" under Ignatieff, Dion, and Martin, the Party hasn't really come out with many policy stances.  Although, somewhat hilariously, this rehaul included the stance that the next Liberal leader would seek to have marijuana legalized.  This was boldly stated on the website, I remember checking because I couldn't believe a party would actually do such a thing.  They have now somewhat backpedaled and declared themselves "Smart on Cannabis."  But, as always, I digress.  It could be that they are holding back on policy so that the other two [much stronger] parties won't steal policy ideas pre-election and claim them under their own platform.  It has happened before, and it would be clever to wait to hear from the opposition before carving one's own path.  If the Grits actually have ideas.  Which we don't know for sure.

However, when Justin makes a decision, by God is it as sudden as it is swift and decisive.  One day in 2014, seemingly out of the blue, Trudeau announces that those people seeking to run as Liberal nominees must not oppose abortion and "a woman's right to choose."  In a similar event, after the Senate expense scandal, he suddenly announced that "there are no Liberal senators," and that they would no longer have any official affiliation with the Grits.  It's almost Harperian in that nobody really seemed to be thinking or talking about the issue at hand, and then sweeping, decisive declarations were made.  If anything is for certain, he isn't being accused of waffling.  Unless he has to go back on the senator affiliations, which he may have to for political leverage in the future.  But that's for the future.

And now, to break up a large block of text, this happened:

I've heard ample criticism of Trudeau in my social circles.  From speculation that he will make the West subservient to the East (because I live in Alberta now, I hear these things), to speculation that almost everything he has said to this point is blatant pandering to students. I don't agree with these points, frankly.  However, I am concerned that he acts impulsively.  I have previously argued that, while he made the right decision in the suspension of his MPs which were accused of sexual harassment, he acted much too quickly.  There's this thing we have called "presumption of innocence," and unless he had very compelling evidence, his actions should have been much more limited.

Finally, Trudeau plays the game well.  The Tory attack-ad machine successfully destroyed three Grit leaders with taglines such as "The Liberal Party is not corrupt" [pictured: hard-working Canadians shaking their heads in disbelief], "Stephane Dion is not a leader," and Ignatieff's "He didn't come back for you."  The machine started up for Trudeau, with an ad saying "He's in way over his head."  Trudeau responded by first showing the attack ad, turning to the camera, and saying that this was ridiculous and Canadians deserved better.  The attack ad machine, which has been operating successfully for almost a decade was halted, and hasn't shown up since.  It'll be interesting to see how this goes.

My Verdict:

One could argue that Trudeau may yet prove to be either a young gun or loose cannon.  I, however, have more pressing issues to address.  Trudeau has been seen sporting long curly locks and facial hair.  Then he comes on the political scene talking about evidence-based practices.  WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT TO STEAL FROM ME, JUSTIN!?  DO YOU WANT TO MAKE UNIVERSAL PUBLIC TRANSIT A POLICY, TOO!?

Justin Trudeau: Avid Reader of Vodka and Equations, Thief.

My Prediction:

Shortly after Trudeau was named leader of the Grits, I was having breakfast with my cousin in the sunny window of Belleville's Cozy Grill.  I said that although we had missed out on an Astronaut Prime Minister (or is that PM Astronaut?), Trudeau was exactly what the Grits needed to crawl out of third party status.  They didn't and, I'd argue, don't need an intellectual heavyweight or an experienced diplomat.  They need a young, charismatic leader to stir up excitement.  He may yet prove to be the heavyweight or the diplomat, but for now he is someone to draw people back to the Grits.

It is for that reason that I think Trudeau will win a minority.  If he doesn't, I imagine Harper will be held to a minority.

NM

Other posts in this series:
Harper, the Proroguer
Mulcair, the Reasonable One

P.S. Four hours and 2440 words later.  Apparently I had things to say about the leaders!

Election 2015: Mulcair, the Reasonable One.

The Right Honourable Thomas Mulcair, remembering that time he was lambasted for saying Canada had Dutch disease, immediately before a report came out saying Canada had Dutch disease.  Source.

So,

I'm continuing on in my "Election 2015" series in [hopefully] one marathon writing session, with articles being released once every day or so.  The posts on the opposition opponents will probably be shorter, because they haven't been granted the opportunity to infuriate me nor drive me to angry blogging.  Yet.  Today's installment: Mulcair, the most reasonable guy in the room.  Also, Liberal until 2007.  Crazy, eh?

My Summary:

Mulcair has impressed me since taking the reigns from Smilin' Jack Layton after his untimely passing.  He's frequently featured on The House with Evan Solomon, and is often eloquent and measured.  That said, I'm most impressed by his work in Parliament, and the stories coming out of the House of Commons.  To wit:

Honestly, take the time to watch that video, he handles the situation brilliantly.  Further, this ultimately ended with a tearful apology from Paul Calandra and probably the death of his political career.  Also note that the second time Calandra deflected, he was given a standing ovation from his fellow Tories.  You'll also note a serious mis-step just after the four minute mark from Mulcair, he questions the neutrality of the Speaker of the House.  As it turns out, the Speaker does not necessarily have the power to compel Members of Parliament to answer questions, but it has led to a discussion of the role of the Speaker, and I would be glad to see more powers granted so that parliamentary discussion can be, y'know, useful.

With the exception of the last exchange, this is typical Mulcair.  After a marathon session of Parliament (I wish I had found an article which covered this, but I didn't), full of petty bickering and little progress, Mulcair ended the evening by essentially calling the lot of them a bunch of children, and adding that he hoped they would have a more productive day to follow.  I think his attitude will speak to a lot of Canadians who are fed up with the current pettiness of politics, and I think his is a good voice to have in Parliament.

Mulcair has also embraced his role as Leader of the Official Opposition.  Unlike his predecessors (except perhaps Ignatieff, who took a similar tack), he has been measured, not getting spiteful, but has also been persistent.  He makes an effort to hold Harper to account whenever he feels attention is warranted.  Though he has no political leverage in the House, his work frequently finds the ears of Canadians and can lead to change from public pressure, because it seems the only way to sway Harper is if his polling numbers are significantly threatened.

Most recently, I seem to recall Mulcair being concerned at the prospect of mission creep in Canada's role in the air strikes against ISIS targets.  I could be wrong, but I [think I] specifically remember them because I thought it was an unreasonable concern.  We would be involved in air strikes and potentially training, and there would be a six month review.  However, Canadian Forces now find themselves on the front lines of battle.  Mulcair is active in demanding an explanation of the governing party, though we are roundly assured that Canada is not in a combat mission, it's just that they're training from the front lines, and they have to defend themselves if fired upon, don't they?

Something to think about.

My Verdict: 

Mulcair is, quite possibly, the only [or perhaps, most] sane person in the House of Commons.


My Prediction:

Mulcair should probably win this election, but he won't.


NM

Other posts in this series:
Harper, the Proroguer
Trudeau, the New Kid

Election 2015: Harper, the Proroguer.

Prime Minister Harper, remembering the days of high oil prices.  Source.

So,

After almost four whole years after the Tories took power, we are once again in an election year.  I'll admit that I'm pretty excited at this prospect as a fan of evidence-based practices and a proud Canadian that has been repeatedly exasperated by the elected representatives of my countrymen.  Particularly that second one, under "exasperated."  It touches on the most mind-bending of Harper's offenses, though my writing is excessively verbose.

I thought it would be an interesting exercise to record my thoughts on the candidates going into this election, including what I think of each candidate, and where I think they'll end up after election night.  That way I can look back at what my exact thoughts were (as can all of you, my be-monocled, top-hatted readers), and reflect on how truly wrong and misguided I was.

My Summary:

So, Harper the Proroguer.  I've been thinking a lot about it this week, and I cannot decide whether he is willfully blind to evidence, an excellent politician, a fool, or all of the above.  In all seriousness, I believe he must be doing what he thinks is right, I don't think he's doing anything with deliberate malice, but he just keeps doing such goofy things.

Take for example the census.  Canada was a world leader in excellent census data, particularly because it was mandatory.  Prison sentences actually awaited those who refused to fill out the long-form census.  Harper publicly decried these penalties and removed them in one of his first acts as the leader of a majority government.

What's my problem with that?  Well, I'll say first and foremost that it wasn't an issue.  It's almost like his movement to change the lyrics of 'O Canada' to be more gender-inclusive.  It just wasn't being discussed.  It wasn't on anyone's radar.  It's like he saw a peaceful beehive and decided to stick his finger in there to see what would happen.  It's like he's the Joker of political action, just an agent of chaotic destruction.  Anyway, it didn't matter to him that nobody in the history of the Canadian census had ever gone to prison for not filling out the census, because no reasonable person would ever choose prison over taking ten minutes to half-ass the long-form census.  So now we have a voluntary survey.  That's great.  How does the government now make decisions on how to best deliver public services?  Probably based on questionable data.  Or purely political motivations, knowing Harper.

After the Tories fought tooth and nail for these things, it turns out they don't even work in the Arctic.  But they are, and will always be, Scandalicious. Source.

However, this could also have been a brilliant calculation.  The economic situation hasn't been great since the Great Recession of 2008, and who is least likely to fill out the voluntary survey?  According to Ivan Fellegi, former Chief Statistician of Canada, it's the poor, new immigrants, and aboriginals.  Those who, in general, could benefit most from public services, and those who are most likely to deflate Canada's economic picture.  This is pure, baseless speculation, but it would be a brilliant political move.

So that's a thing that happened.  Harper also came to power promising more government accountability, appointed a Parliamentary Budget Officer to fulfill said promise, and then dismissed the unfortunate Kevin Page when, y'know, he tried to hold government to account.  Which was his job description.  And the job was created for that purpose by Harper.  Harper wanted to reform the Senate and make it more democratic, and then a bunch of his senate appointees were unceremoniously ousted for their unethical behaviour.  He referred to a non-confidence motion to defeat his government as a "parliamentary trick" when that's how he himself came to power (or that's how I remember it anyway).

He's an interesting character.  Bewildering, but certainly entertaining.

My Verdict:

Petulant politician, perpetually pining for power.

My Prediction:

... Isn't really much of a prediction.  Those who have been paying attention for his tenure are mostly sick of his antics, but most electors either 1) haven't been paying attention, or 2) vote Tory out of principle, and are probably over the age of 55.  He's got a solid support base.  Further, if Mike Duffy's allegations that Harper ordered him to pay back his expenses because, quote, "it is inexplicable to our base," he certainly does a lot of his maneuvering with his supporters in mind.  I think Harper has it in him to win again with two "unproven" rivals.  If he wins it'll probably be a minority, and if he loses he will almost certainly limit the winner to minority status.

NM

Other posts in this series:
Mulcair, the Reasonable One
Trudeau, the New Guy

P.S.  In the lead up to this, I watched a bunch of old Rick's Rants.  You might enjoy them too, so they're posted below.  Also following is a link from the hilarious Scott Feschuk on Stephen Harper from 2013 conversing with his 2005 self.

http://www.macleans.ca/authors/scott-feschuk/its-so-good-to-talk-to-me-again/

Pipelines. [EBP7]

The Alaskan Pipeline.  Source Ryan McFarland.

So,

I tried to fiddle with my blog layout, so hopefully you'll see more photos in their original size.  As it turns out, the average computer monitor isn't quite so restricted as it was when Awesome, Inc. designed this template, and it's nice to be able to show pictures in their original size and splendour.

But yes, to the point.  The Keystone XL pipeline has been approved by the United States' Congress and President Obama has vowed to use his veto.  I'm also hearing a lot about the Energy East pipeline, which is currently slated to ship Alberta and Saskatchewan oil as far east as Cornwall, Ontario.  Specifically, it will deliver crude oil to refineries in the East.  Tom Mulcair has actually been a vocal proponent of upgrading our raw natural resources before exporting them, because it means more Canadian jobs and increases the value of our exports.  It seems much better than exporting our oil to be refined in other countries, so that we may buy it back at a higher price, anyway.

But still I digress.  Pipelines are all over the news, and there is a lot of resistance.  Tonnes of it, even.  In fact, there exists a pipeline known as "Line 9" that runs from Sarnia to Montreal.  In 1976, it carried oil eastward, I am assuming in the wake of the OPEC oil crisis.  In 1998, the flow was reversed to ship the cheap oil from across the Atlantic inward.  And now, again, the flow has been reversed to supply Western crude to the East.  The amount of resistance and complaints this faced was astounding given that the pipeline was already in place.

So pipelines are so unpopular that even those which exist are subject to intense scrutiny for simply reversing flow direction.  Pipelines which are to be constructed face even more intense criticism.  And I will grant that this is at least partially warranted.  Pipelines are subject to failures which can release non-trivial amounts of crude oil into potentially sensitive environmental areas.

But here's the thing: Canada is addicted to oil.  The world is addicted to oil.  Since the Industrial Revolution, we have been burning and using fossil fuels, and it has shaped our lives in ways most people don't realise.  All your plastics are petroleum products.  Polar fleece sweaters are made from petroleum.  Drugs and the solvents used to develop them are often based on petroleum products.  But the biggest use of oil is for energy, and energy is the biggest industry there is.  If liquid fuels are included, it is the biggest industry by several factors.  To quote Rick Mercer, that's alotta poutine.

So we're addicted, and it's big money.  Money so big that Canada's dollar is under 80 cents USD, down about twenty cents since the price of oil dropped precipitously.  Money so big that the oil will be shipped, regardless the approval of the pipelines people protest.  And what happens when pipelines get blocked?  Well, Lac-Mégantic happens because the oil needs to be shipped and, shockingly, CN and CP are more than happy to make money transporting things to port.

Intermodal Safety in the Transport of Oil, from the Fraser Institute.

So it seems pretty obvious that the money at stake ensures the extraction and transport of available oil.  Now consider the above figure.  Pipelines are at most half as risky as transportation by rail (when adjusted for the amount transported), and these numbers are from before the crop of recent derailments.  So if one truly wishes to stop pipelines, one must get humanity off of oil.  Stopping pipeline construction won't alleviate climate change, because the oil will get shipped by more dangerous means, only putting more lives and environmental areas at risk.

I don't think oil is in the far future for humanity, oil being an unsustainable resource, unlike nuclear and hydro.  But we are addicted.  When OPEC cut off the supply of oil to North America, things got really bad really quickly.  We need to find alternative sources of transportation fuel (or batteries), but it won't change overnight.  So as long as we need oil, we should ship it by pipeline.  It's cheaper and safer than the alternatives.  Well, except maybe for filling water bombers with oil.

NM

Torture [EBP6].

This document has come to be known colloquially as the CIA torture report.

So,

Merry Christmas!  This isn't at all a festive topic, but it's been on my mind lately, and I've stumbled upon some free time because the people with whom I am spending Christmas don't share my 07:00 start time.  Half an hour ago I discovered the hidden pickle ornament which shall entitle me to the "Pickle Present," when everyone else is awake, and now I'm bored.

Many nation states have tortured prisoners in an attempt to gain intelligence in the past, and I'm sure many will into the future.  Islamic State militants are currently torturing their prisoners using the "waterboarding" technique in an act of vengeance (though I'm sure they would have it framed as reciprocity).  After the attacks of September 11, 2001, United States operatives utilised what have come to be known "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" (EIT) which bear a striking resemblance to what the rest of the civilised world would call "torture."  I'm not going to get into the details, because that isn't the point of this post.

Torture is sort of a heavy topic, so here's a picture of a puppy.  This scruffy fellow's name is Sawyer.

In a move that I am going to applaud, the US Senate reviewed and then publicly disclosed the results the use of EIT, and it's not good (you can find a good summary here).  The long and short of it is that  it did not work nearly as well as had been hoped or represented by the CIA.  Frankly, this doesn't surprise me either.  Part of first year psychology classes includes the lesson that torture doesn't provide useful information because, when under that level of duress, people will say anything to make the pain stop.  This is more or less what was found by the Senate Committee, though the CIA asserts that a known courier to Osama bin Laden was named after the use of EITs on a detainee.

Torture makes for exciting television or movie storylines, and it seems to appeal to a "common sense" notion that hurting people will force them to give up useful intelligence, but in practice it doesn't really work.  Any careful organisation will enforce a "need-to-know" system in which most detainees wouldn't have any useful information anyway.  

That question remains, however, how do you acquire intelligence from a prisoner if not through torture?  They're not supposed to tell you useful information after all, so what do you?  Well, here's a novel, Chistmas-y idea: try being nice to them.  The most interesting sources which I have come across on this topic were in psychology lectures (which might be misremembered, it might be in the text), and in the book "The Defence of the Realm," the authorised history of MI5.  The only source I could easily Google can be found here, and mirrors what I've read elsewhere.  In essence, if you treat a person as hostile, they're less likely to co-operate with you.  If you tell them honestly that they are no longer a combatant (because they aren't), and if you express genuine empathy for their situation, they're far more likely to co-operate.  As mentioned in the source, Hans Scharff was an interrogator for the Luftwaffe in World War II.  He was so successful that some of his US prisoners were tried for treason after the war  because he had gotten so much information out of them.  That's how successful you can be when you don't act like the evil enemy you might be portrayed as.

When I come downstairs in the morning in Belleville (this was taken when I was recovering from hip surgery), Bailey comes to see me and we have a "chat."

It's also worth noting that, though the Republican Party does not widely condemn the use of EIT, prominent Republican John McCain does.  He specifically states that torturing detainees compromises "...that which most distinguishes us from our enemies.  Our belief that all people, even captured enemies, posses basic human rights."  He's absolutely correct.  Specifically now, when Islamic State militants are being condemned for their inhuman acts, it's difficult to maintain the moral high ground while actively torturing prisoners.  So going forward, let's all remember the Christmas spirit, and engage in the evidence-based practice of not torturing people.

"By the way," you might ask, while polishing your monocle, "why did John McCain come out so strongly against torture when the rest of his party did not?"  It probably has to do with the fact that John McCain was tortured in Vietnam.

NM

Suggested reading/watching:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-senate-report-condemns-cia-harsh-interrogations-1.2865440

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/cia-torture-report-8-times-u-s-officials-defended-cia-interrogations-1.2866960

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/being_nice_worked_in_world_war_ii._why_not_now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture#Findings_listed_in_the_report