Weight loss update

Continuing with random blather that nobody cares about, today I weighed in at 273.

Starting weight: 286
Today: 273
Goal #1: 258lbs

Ranting about Quiznos......

I went to Quiznos tonight and instead of my usual meatball sub they gave me some sort of crappy, cafterialike sub that's part of their "Real Deal" menu. Gone are the sauteed onions, green peppers, and baguette bread. Now its a bun like you get in a grocery store with half the meatballs, and you can't even get whole wheat. I also pay the same price that I did before for a now totally inferior sub.

I've never been so angry with a buisness before, and I sent off a nasty complaint letter that including sentences like "the moron who came up with this idea should be fired!".

People reading this blog might not care, but I just feel like ranting....

Some sound advice....

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."
- George washington

Given Bush's promise to spend another four years "spreading freedom", I think it's high time we follow one of the America's own founders advice. It's time for Canada to pull out of NATO and NORAD and become officially neutral like Switzerland. Given the track record of the current administration, it's far more dangerous for us to be entangled with these military alliances than it is to simply say "trade with everyone, entaglements with noone".

You might think "but America protects Canada!". That's actually untrue. Given a choice between saving Philidelphia or saving Calgary, the American military would, and should, chose to save Philidelphia.

"But what about Canada's weak military"? Switzerland also has a weak military, yet no one complains. Canada has no real enemies at this point, and the only nations that could support the logistics of attacking a vast, relatively remote nation like us happen to be limited to countries like Russia, China, and the USA itself. If China declared war on Canada, there's little we could do to defend ouselves militarily even if we quintupled Canada's military budget. Our best and only defence is to be neutral.

America won't last forever

A thread from the We Move to Canada blog. It's something to consider. No nation is eternal, and all major powers either fade or are destroyed. For the Americans reading, your goal should be to delay it as much as possible, and for the rest of us its to be ready for the inevitable crash.

As a note, the length of world powers grows shorter each time. Rome was 2000 years, England was only 300. The Soviets only lasted 73 years.

--------------------------------------------------------

At 1/20/2005 10:01:47 AM, RobfromAlberta said...

I think one big difference between Canadians and Americans is that we lack sentimentality about ourselves and our country. That is reflected in our constitution. It is essentially a legal document. It would be nice to have stirring language and a vision for the ages, but quite frankly, if we did that, most Canadians would find it silly and pretentious. We just don't take ourselves very seriously. We are a minor nation borne of compromise and surely destined to fail at some future date, so we just try to muddle through and make the best of the hand we were dealt.

At 1/20/2005 10:40:01 AM, Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

That is the best part I guess. America's perception of itself as the "chosen nation" is a bad one. Rob said Canada's destined to fail, which is true. But minor nations simply appear/dissapear without shaking the world. Major nations generally also always fail, but when they do they generally crash in a spectacular fireball. Think of Rome, Russia, France, or to a lesser extent the UK (The UK itself survived, but it's legacy includes such wonders as the whole Israel/Palestine thing).

At 1/20/2005 10:58:03 AM, L-girl said...

Yes, when an empire crashes it takes so much with it. Most Americans would be shocked to hear anyone say that the US will capsize like all the empires that have gone before it.

You might want to post your comment above - see my most recent post. Or not. I think it's worth it.

As Prime Minister Series #2: The Senate

This ones a fairly easy one. I'd movedto an elected Senate, instead of our current system where the Prime Minister appoints a Senator. Personally, I think our Senate is almost useless, but it would be such a small thing to do and yet it would please Alberta.

Now, according to the constitution of Canada, changing the Senate to an elected Senate could be done by an act of government. The text about "summoning Senators" happens to read the same as the text about summoning MPs in the House of Commons. However, the constitution also says that Senators serve until age 75 unless they voluntarily resign.

Opening up the constitution is a recipie for national strife and disaster, so here's one of those areas where "custom" instead of law could apply. If the Senator's voluntarily resign on a four year period or so, you could probably satisfy most of Alberta demands for a triple-E senate without having to go through another Meech Lake fiasco.

Now for the Americans reading this, you might be interested to know that a lot of Canada's system is based on custom instead of law. Our constitution is vague on elections and doesn't mention the Prime Minister, so a custom of voluntarily resigning Senators isn't as crazy as it sounds.

Of course, if a Senator refused, there'd be nothing you could do.

New look...

You'll notice the template changed on my blog. Don't mind me, I just like fiddling with things. I lost all the links, but I'll put them back in soon.

I also went out and bought a new computer last night. My old 550 MHZ Athalon was just chugging, and its been a long time since I could play any new games on it. So I finally broke down and bought a nice new HP 720n, with a nice 17" flat panel display. I've always wanted a flat panel, and now I finally have one.

Of course, I'm typing this now at work. I'm between product cycles at work, and until marketing comes up with requirements for the next project there seems to be little to do at work except take mind numbing CBT (computer based training) courses and work on my blog.

What is a progressive libertarian?

Before I go any further, I thought that I'd take some time to explain my own political philosophy. I call myself a progressive libertarian, so what does that mean?

Simply reading the posts so far doesn't tell the whole story. On some issues, I'll sound like I'm coming from the right. On other issues, I'll sound like I'm coming from the left. It might seem inconsistent, but it fits together well once you see the whole picture.

Many libertarians see the government as a stifling force that prevents them from doing what they want. It prevents them from reaching greatness, and it should be minimized as much as possible. I, on the other hand, see the government as both necessary and sometimes beneficial. I don't believe that private is always better than public, nor that freedom solves everything.

However, I do believe the government often overregulates in a response to "solve issues". For example, in Ontario the government recently introduced a pit bull ban after a man was attacked and severely injured. As often happens with emotional issues, the talking heads started weighing in and stirring public outrage, and within weeks the ban came out. There's no logic or rational thought going on here, people are simply overreacting. Now there's a public smoking ban. Personally, I don't smoke or ever intend too, nor do I think that restaurant workers should have to work with the dangers of second hand smoke. Yet, when the new ban prevents even seperately ventilated smoking rooms where the workers don't have to enter, that's going way over the boundary.

This is the crux of the issue. The government reacts the mood swings of the day, especially that battle cry of "think of the children!". We're being smothered by good intentions, and we really don't need a law for every possible situation. There are dangers everywhere, its a fact of life.

I think the pros and cons of government involvement have to be carefully weighed before a law comes to pass. If the pros outweigh the cons (and often they will), then go ahead and pass a law. Politicians don't do this kind of analysis. Actually, you're lucky if they even read the bills they're voting on.

Socialists on the other hand, see the market as the great exploiter. Big Business is evil and will take you to the cleaners whenever it has the chance. Huge faceless corporations are ruining the planet and enslaving people. Like government, I also view the market as neither evil nor inherently exploitive. The market is neither benign nor malevolent, it simply is. Like good intention government, profit seekers can also exceed boundaries without regard to the consequences. However, most companies are simply trying to make a decent profit and will react to what consumers want.

In fact, the free market might be the one to solve the oil situation. As oil prices rise, the market itself will look to alternative energy sources. However, what will likely happen is that people (and even many companies) will ask the government to control oil prices. If the government agrees, then the alternative fuels won't be developed and when the oil does run out, we'll be up a creek without a paddle.

As for the welfare state, I think that needs work. I don't believe in social Darwinism, but I don't think a social safety net is nearly as useful as a ladder. The net keeps people from falling farther, but it doesn't really do anything to get them off welfare either. Instead, we should look at programs that help people get back on their feet as quickly as possible, even if they seem more expensive in the short term. It's far better to spend $100 000 to train a person and get them back into the workforce, then to spend $15 000 a year for the rest of their lives.

As Prime Minister Series #1: Healthcare

Good evening ladies in gentleman, please keep you hands in the car at all times as we veer to the left and into the healthcare minefield.

Healthcare is one of those parts were the "progressive" part of progressive libertarian comes in. I support public health care insurance, which doesn't seem very libertarian of me. Food is essential to life, but I have no problems with that being market driven. So why would I consider health care different?

It's your choice to drive a car, and so paying insurance is optional. However, healthcare isn't a choice. When you need it, you need it now, and you don't choose what kind of service your getting.

Still, I'm not suggesting we simply stick with what we have here in Canada at the moment. We have doctor shortages now because 15 years ago the provincial governments cut back on spaces in med schools in an attempt to contain costs. What we need is a mix between public and private insurance that ensures everyone is covered and gets the best possible care.

Without further delay, here is my prescription for health care:

• All Canadian taxpayers and their dependents will recieve a basic health care plan that covers the following:
• 1 yearly physical
• 2 elective surgeries/year
• 15 doctor visits (any referrals count as part of the same visit)
• Tests/MRIs/etc as long as within the 15 visits mentioned above
• Visits exceeding the 15 above require a 50% co-payment.
  
• 100% emergency coverage
• Post-operative home care & supplies
• 50% prescription drug coverage
• Pregnancey & Natal care
• other stuff that I'm overlooking might be included.
  
• The plan must be accepted at all licenced health care facilities in Canada
• The plan does not include
• Out of country medical
• private/semi-private hospital beds
• Cosmetic surgery
• Premiums for the plan will be set on a province-by-province basis by their respective Medical Associations, and will come off of your paycheque (similar to EI and CPP)
  
• The basic health care plan will be run by a not-for-profit crown corporation, and the premiums will not go into general government revenues
• The user may opt out of the plan if he/she has private medical insurance.
• All other health care decisions are left to the provinces (i.e. allowing private hospitals, etc).
  

I think this will allow everyone to get what they want. Everyone is insured. Private insurers will compete to get you to switch to their plans by including more visits, out of country coverage, etc. An arm's length crown corporation keeps the politicans from meddling too much. The provision that all health care providers must treat you prevents people from having "rich people" hospitals and "poor people" hospitals, while still allowing rich people to pay for a private room where they get a mint on the pillow if they want too. Prudent limitations prevent people from abusing the system.

What's important to note is that this won't solve all problems. There's no magic solution that allows everyone to get unlimited first rate health care for free. The best we can do is be pragmatic.

Week 1: 7.5 lbs

Week 1 of WW went a-okay. I lost 7.5 lbs! Of course, that's unsustainable, but its a good start.

Goal #1: 258lbs
This week: 278.5lbs

Some thoughts on crime and punishment

Today I was thinking about crime and punishment. Canada, like many countries, doesn't have a death penalty, though polls often show that an ever-shrinking majority would favor reinstating it.

This would be a terrible idea. I object to the death penalty mainly because I don't think the system is infallible. Nothing that man has ever created has been perfect, and the justice system in any country is far from it. If the state kills just one innocent person out of ten thousand on death row, that would be one death too many.

If you've ever worked in a customer facing field, you begin to believe that everyone's an idiot. If you were on trial, would you want to trust another person to decide whether you live or die, especially if that someone can't figure out how to work a VCR?

Then there's the media, which finds you guilty long before you've stepped into the courtroom. I really wonder if people like Scott Peterson got a fair trial.

Now, some people would say that the death penalty in the states proves that stiffer sentences don't reduce crime. Countries without the death penalty have lower murder rates, so obviously the punishment doesn't prevent the crime. This is also untrue. There is a relationship between crime and punishment, but its not a linear relationship.

If you remeber highschool math, the relationship would probably look like negative exponential, as you increase punishment crime decreases. Yet after a certain point, you can double, triple, quadruple, etc. the punishment but it won't really make much of a difference. I would say that threshold is about 15-20 years. I'm 27 now, and if I commited a crime that had a two year sentence, I'd get out at 29. That doesn't seem so bad. But at 15 years, I'd then be 42 when I got out. That's a huge chunk of my life gone. 30 years would put me at 57, is that much worse than getting out at 42? Not really. There is a percentage of people who would commit a crime no matter what that punishment is, and "getting tough" on them isn't going to make much of a difference.

Losing weight

As mentioned, I joined Weight Watchers last week. I have my first weigh-in (not counting the initial one) tommorow. I intend to update this blog once a week with how I'm doing, mostly as a self motiviational thing.

There's all sorts of diets competing for our dollars these days, all with the "results not typical" disclaimer.

After reading claims and counter claims, some researchers found that it doesn't really matter what diet you follow as long as you stick to it. Most diets fail because people give up on them.

So far, this first week has been fairly easy. According to my home scale, I'm down 5-6 pounds. It helps that both my fiancée and I are on the same diet this time. We tend to corrupt each other if one of us is dieting and the other isn't or if we're on different plans.

Another motivitating factor is that I already paid for 7 weeks. I will follow it for 7 weeks at least, since I want my money's worth.

Fixing the vote

Here's a summary of a thread from another blog I've been commenting on. It pretty much sums up my views on the American electoral system:

---

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

Hi!

I found your blog through comments you posted to "We move to Canada". In there you mentioned that you like to read opposing points of view, which I agree with whole heartedly. So here I am, reading your blog even though you and I would probably sit on opposite sides of the fence in most issues.

Anyway, I disagree with that reasoning for the Electoral college. The American revolution predates Socialism as a political movement.

Actually, I think your entire system was an attempt to form a true representative democracy and avoid the pitfalls of the Westminister Parliamentary system which already existed at the time of your revolution.

Your whole system was meant to work without political parties at all. In theory at least, every House Representative and Senator should be an independant and represent their own region. The president, however had to represent the whole country so they devised the Electoral college as an attempt to prevent regionalism from deciding the presidency.

In contrast, a parliamentary system like we have here in Canada can't function without political parties. The party that wins the most votes becomes the government (both executive & legislative). Except in free votes, MPs are required to vote along party lines. It forms strong governments, but it doesn't work well as a representative system.

In forming political parties, I think the American system lost what was supposed to make it special. Especially now that both Republicans and Democrats have made it almost impossible to chose a 3rd party or independant representative.

7:52 AM

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

This isn't related to your topic, but just something in general when you were complaining about tolerance and balance.

People are pretty much incapable of seeing their own bias. Most people believe they're fair and open minded when they really aren't.

This is why you might watch Bill O'Reilly and think he's being fair and open, and I could watch the same thing and think he's out to lunch. Or why I might think an article in the NY Times is objective, while you would see it as a strongly liberal bias.

When it comes to news, I try to read as many sources as possible, especially ones that I disagree with or make me angry. It's the only way to get the whole truth.

8:10 AM

Eraserhead said...

Totally agree with you on the 3rd party thing Kyle.Our two party system is becoming a complete farce. "You scratch my back for awhile and I will scratch yours when you are in power.Meanwhile, lets keep the other guy out of it."

Also, you are right they created the Electoral college to prevent regionalism. That is why we need it more than ever. A lot of folks here in the states do not want 4 places deciding our elections. New York city, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Franciso.Those have a sizable population that could essentially put "their" guy in power. What goes on in NYC is not what goes on in Waldo, FLorida.

Socialism as a concept has been around forever. The framers recognized it. Were scared of it. Government is not the solution it is the problem.

As for my bias, yeah I have it, and I think as human animals we could not live without it.

Thanks for the comments. Unfortunatly, I am not as adamant about posting to my own blog as much as L-Girl.

In the meantime, pray or whatever, that the NHL comes back soon. Go Avalanche!

1:00 PM

Veritas said...

Kyle,
It is I who has been requested to cease posting my commentary on We Move To Canada, so here I am.

Anyhow, your analysis is much in line with my own in terms of the corruption of our electoral college by the rise of dominant political parties.

You seemt to stipulate that the EC worked at one time, but that we should get rid of IT instead of getting rid of the political parties which have corrupted an otherwise functional system.

Also, I fail to see what you propose instead? Do you prefer a national popular vote with the winner taking all?

How does that differ from the EC, after all if California represents 10% of the national population, it also represents 10% of the EC votes?

1:09 PM

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

In your case I'd suggest either getting rid of political parties or going to proportional representation system at least for EC votes. Otherwise if your a Democrat in Dallas or a Republican Boston you might as well stay home on voting day.

For Canada, I think PR is also a good idea. I used to think that it was a bad idea because it tends to form weak governments in a parliamentary system. Now after watching various parties get more and more arrogant the longer they're in power, I think that weak governments are a good idea.

1:53 PM

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

What I mean that states that use PR with the Electoral College end up with a fair vote compared to states where the winner gets all the electoral votes.

You'd avoid the whole Red States/Blue State I hate you divide, though the election would probably end up the same (as long as ALL states switched to it)

1:58 PM

Veritas said...

Kyle,
I like the proportional awarding of EC votes much better, primarily because 3rd party candidates could begin to win an EC vote here and there.

There are pockets of America desperately seeking a voice, but it is not heard because the 2 major political parties have stifled those of us who think for ourselves and who can see through their phony lies and distortions.

12:55 PM

---

Confessions of a man who doesn't read his own writing

I hearby apologize for all of my grammer mistakes. I may have an engineering degree but that doesn't mean I can spell.

Actually, I did pretty well in essay writing back in high school, but for some reason when it comes to email and blogging I tend to get sloppy. Especially with email, I tend to hit send as soon as I finish the last word. However, what's going through my head and what's being typed by my hands are not necessarily the same thing. Often, after reading an email I've already sent, I notice that whole words and phrases are missing. Other times I notice the word I wrote wasn't the word I thought. For example, in the post below I wrote we'll when I was thinking well.

I always chide myself and promise to be more careful, but then my resolve slips and it's back to sloppy writing for me.

Links

I've added a links menu to blogs I'm reading. I'll be adding more as I go along, or you can ask me to link to you. As a note, I tend to read a wide variety of viewpoints in case you're wondering why I would link to some blogs that seem to have opposite philosophies.

Non political stuff....

We'll, I just feel like telling the world. I proposed to my girlfriend the other day, and she said "Yes"!

Well, there wasn't really any doubt in my mind, but it feels good anyway. Now the big challenge is trying to figure out the wedding. Both of us would prefer something small and maybe exotic, like getting married on a cruise ship, but that would rule out my mother and her grandparents from coming. I guess we'll figure it out.

The other big change was that we both joined Weight Watchers. I'm not the only guy at the meetings, so I don't feel totally silly. I only have a couple of years until I hit 30, and I'd definitely like to get back in shape while I'm still young.

What would you do as PM?

This weekend, I'm going to babble on about how I'd change things if I were Prime Minister. But before that, I thought I'd ask for ideas from others. Any thoughts on what you would do as PM?

Watch out for the scum....

::Sigh:: It's so predictable. As soon as the donations started pouring in to help the disaster victims in Asia, I wondered how long until the scammers would start appearing. And now here they are, out in droves posing as Red Cross volunteers and trying to line their own pockets.

So here's my advice. Don't give any money to anyone who shows up at your door or solicits you by email unless you're absolutely sure they're legit.

The better solution is for you to donate directly to the Red Cross (or other charity of your choice) by calling them yourself or via the Internet. That way you know for sure that your money is going to help the tsunami victims instead of human scum trying to milk a bad situation for their own profit.