The economics of stupid

With word that they have to cut $250 000 from their operating budget, Saint John Transit immediately launched a "Save the employees" campaign. This is becoming an ever increasing tactic to try to avoid having to make appropriate cuts.

Companies have become very comfortable with the concept of cutting from the bottom, but have never bothered to look at the impact of continually doing this (I can't claim to know the organizational structure within this organization, but their are certain government groups which have several managers who no longer manage anyone).

The problem I have is this. $250 000 represents less than 5 mechanics or slightly more than 5 maintenance people, bus drivers, etc. It also represents 2 managers (assuming they fall within the city's normal pay structure). Which one of these cuts makes the most sense?

Of course, we the people and they the workers get screwed here (and in all of these public decisions) because managers simply do not get laid off in our society. It's about time that someone steps up and starts cutting in appropriate manners, instead of treading water (reducing service) and hoping it will continue to work.

Global Warming

From Nasa, "Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase. " In other words, Global warming is the heating of the atmosphere and the domino effect that that heating has on our world and our lives.

Global warming is caused by a myriad of factors which include big business (CO2 emission), vehicles, the clearing of trees and plantlife (which absorb CO2) and natural heating from the sun itself.

The biggest fear that global warming poses is the potential for drastic and unpredictable weather changes. Life is difficult when you can predict most major storms two or three days in advance, but it would be devastating to not have this preparation time.

Not only is there the threat of violent storm potentially destroying our shelters and/or directly causing us harm, there is also the threat that a sudden storm could impact our means of food gathering, our means of transport, and our financial stability (insurance can only survive for so long).

The contentious part of global warming isn't whether the atmosphere is heating up, but rather whether or not this heating up is part of a cyclical process.

In an article in the National Post (Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age by Lorne Gunter Feb 25/08), the concept of Global cooling was brought to the forefront; namely, that our climate is about to go through an annual cooling where winters are supposed to get colder every year (the end point is contentious, though, whether it just gets really cold or we make it to another ice age).

"Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature."

Basically, the world has always had stretches of warmth and stretches of cold. Global warming became the fear of the masses as we got close to the end of the period of warmth and the polar ice caps were in the worst shape they've been in in 40 years (naturally, progressive heat are going to make the caps worse every year, meaning that the last year or two of every natural warming would be the worst the polar caps have been). But now, we are heading into La Nina, the period of Global cooling. And in year one alone, the ice caps gained 10cm of density.

At this point, there hasn't been a lot of real debate on the issue of Global Warming. One group says the world will cease to exist in 20-30 years (personally, I think they should be forced to provide conclusive data, or be subjected to inprisonment for creating mass panic). NASA believes the atmosphere will increase between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees between now and 2100 (this would suggest a cyclical model where every warming period gets progressively warmer. Globalwarminghoax.com were one of the first groups to point out that the polar ice caps are not only better now than they were last year, but they are actually denser than they were in 1980.

And then there is another problem with the whole concept. Where is this mystical current that takes all the polar water south? El Nino (the warm wind) and La Nina (the cool wind) are tropical winds that blow northernly bringing warmer or cooler temperatures north from the equator. The polar ice caps clearly have absolutely no bearing on temperature and weather, because the warming would have lasted beyond when El Nino's warm winds blew (due to a trickle-down (or inertia) effect.

Without more data, and each group ceasing to bicker at one another using partial arguments and the expert analysis of climatologists (some of whom are simply glorified guessers), the only conclusion to make is that Global Warming is a cyclical issue, where we will go through 40 years of cooling, followed by 40 years of warming. Each cycle seems to be getting worse now compared to the past two or three cycles, but there have been much worse cycles (including ice ages and periods of extreme heat). It is quite likely this is exacerbated by our reckless disregard for the environment (CO2 emissions specifically), but it is also quite likely that the emissions will start to cause grievous harm to the people before the climate does (lung cancer is already a major problem and more CO2 emissions only lead to more crippling breathing-related issues).

The likely conclusion is that Global Warming/Cooling is an issue that will eventually become a serious issue, but as an adaptive species, we will be able to cope for at least a few more centuries (and that is assuming that it continues to get worse). It cannot be denied as a reality because the world is heating and cooling cyclically anyway. The scope of how big of a problem it is can be fully questioned, however, due to the lack of complete research, and the prominent use of guesswork in most research that has been done. Instead of trying to predict what the weather will be like tomorrow, it might make more sense to figure out how much of a difference walking to work makes instead of driving. And for the jokers who claim Armageddon will happen within 20-30 years (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group who doesn't carry out any of their own studies; only publishes prominent scientists findings in the name of the UN with complete discretion in what they manipulate in the studies themselves), maybe they should try to present some real data to back up their claims, instead of trying to play Chicken Little. To quote a couple of scientists who vehemently disagree with IPCC (from Wikipedia):

Reid Bryson (1920-2008) believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes. Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, in 2007 he said: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."[62]

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[14]

Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment (June 2007), let alone human-caused warming."[8]

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[49]

And of course, there are quotes that ask "Who cares?" such as
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming." (2003)[59]

Social Muzzling

Sometimes in life, we are forced to keep quiet not because it is the right thing to do, but because the potential ramifications of telling the truth are not manageable. The youth of this nation were raised on a "Canada" that hit it's hayday from 1992-2001 in which Canada was ranked as the number place in the world to live according to the United Nations Human Development Index. This country does not exist and has been replaced with a nation of bickering and backroom collusion between parties.

We live in an age where the government has prorogued parliament twice because they did not feel like working with their counterparts. Therefore, we the people are stuck paying these men and women that do not have enough respect for their constituants to "try" even to do their jobs. We have a government that goes out of their way to try to make everyone else look like scumbags and terrorists, all the while wasting time, money, and any respect other nations might have had for us. Despite this, the opposition parties have been bending over backwards to make sure Harper's conservatives stay in power, to avoid an election.

We also live in a time when a person can't reasonably complain about the problems in everyday life publicly, due to the fact that everyday life usually involves companies that either employ us or our friends and family. We live in an age where more and more of the wealth is possessed by fewer and fewer people. In my hometown, one company owns dozens of companies through an intertwined web. And these companies are all in different businesses, limiting the subjects that can be discussed without extreme censorship.

A "Canada" where people live free with the greatest social programs in the world is starting to sound like it was all a pipe dream, when in reality, it existed only 9 years ago. Woe is man in all his ignorance.

Thanks for your efforts, now go work some more

We are approaching the time where all the baby boomers should be approaching retirement. Unfortunately, their years of dedicated work to try to make the world a better place is about to be met with a "Sorry, old chap, you have to stay at work."



From the Telegraph Journal, "But most Canadians - especially the baby boom generation - will likely not be able to enjoy the comfortable and carefree lifestyle showcased in Freedom 55 Financial advertisements.
A "Freedom 75" scenario is more likely to be the norm in the years ahead - a contrast to the image of energetic 50-somethings globetrotting to exotic locales." By 2011, Statistics Canada estimates that we will have a population of 33.9 million people, of which 2.239 million will be over 75 (6.6% of the total population). 3.8894 million people will be under 19 years of age (the minimum wage group in society). 2.2953 million people will be between 20-24 years of age (the apprentice and student group in society). Another 2.3302 million will be our most effective subsection of the population, aged 25-29, who are the young workers of tomorrow. Between 0-24 years, 6.1847 million people or 18% of our total population will be only partially able to work. If we consider the consider the group above 75, then nearly a quarter of all people in Canada will be at best minimum wagers.



Also from the Telegraph Journal, ""If we're going to live to 90 or beyond, people are not saving enough for 35 years of retirement. The numbers are sobering that we look at," he said.
"You do have certain mechanisms that kick in, Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan, but I'm not sure that there'll be enough private savings to maintain the lifestyle that Canadians have been accustomed to."
Another sobering thought is that governments are going to have to raise taxes to deal with the rising health care costs that will come with the demographic shift. "



Simply put, we as a society haven't planned for these people to live as long as they have and neither have they. And the worst part in all this is that the reason our government can't plan for this is the social programs they were responsible for, including medicare, social insurance, and old age pension.

So those who created the programs we have come to depend on will have to work longer because of those programs. The givers have to keep on giving while the younger generations continue to profit from their elders.
We don't express our thanks often enough.

The kick in the nuts they deserve

The 2016 Olympics were awarded to Rio de Janeiro, but for most media outlets, the big story is that Chicago was eliminated first...from the Telegraph Journal, "Senior Australian IOC member Kevan Gosper surmised that Asian voters may have banded together for Tokyo in the first round, at Chicago's expense.
"I'm shocked," Gosper said. "The whole thing doesn't make sense other than there has been a stupid bloc vote."
He worried that the shock exit could do "untold damage" to the already testy relations between the IOC and the U.S. Olympic Committee. They had recent flare-ups over revenue sharing and a USOC TV network.
"To have the president of the United States and his wife personally appear, then this should happen in the first round is awful and totally undeserving," Gosper said."

It's amazing that people feel that the United States DESERVE to host the Olympics again, even though they hosted in 1980, 1984, 1996, and 2002...by contrast, no other nation has even hosted twice in that timeframe...also, add in the fact that the US got caught bribing officials to get the 2002 Salt Lake City games and it is clear that they deserve NOT to host the Olympics until more nations get a chance to host. What kind of International event would it be if one country was guaranteed to host it every couple of years...

Barack Obama was campaigning for the Olympics in his home town, which means that there is a very good chance that they tried to bribe their way to another games, because frankly, Chicago is a terrible choice when stacked up with a Madrid or a Rio de Janeiro (Barcelona is the only Spanish city where the Olympics have been and that was 24 years prior, and the Olympics have NEVER been to South America).

The US consistently points out the flaws with other countries when they are bidding, ignoring their own problems...for example, "Rio's bid, while high on romance, is not without risk. Because of Rio's high crime and murder rates, security will be a constant issue in 2016. Preparing Rio for the Olympics will cost billions of dollars - money that critics said could have been better spent on tackling the city's social problems." This completely undermines the fact that the US has high crime and murder rates as well...with a little research, Brazil sees 25.7 people per 100,000 murdered versus 5.7 for the US...on the other hand, the US has 4160.51 criminals per 100,000 versus only 927.41 for Brazil...

And then there is the USOC...the USOC is a terrorist organization in and of itself...it hides failed drug tests from the IOC, it helps its athletes get away with cheating (there have even been allegations going so far as to suggest that the USOC gave the illegal substances to the athletes)...but the biggest problem the USOC has created is with their planned channel, USOC TV...USOC TV is intended to show all things Olympics, including trials...it doesn't matter that NBC has a channel, Universal Sports, which currently does the same, or that NBC has a LEGAL contract for the rights to show the Olympics, the USOC still intends to go ahead with plans...from the Seattle Times, "Result: The USOC, famous for its insulting "cease-and-desist" letters to small businesses (including a former Olympic National Forest worker who dared publish a mountain trail map with the word "Olympic" in the title) got a little cease-and-desist letter of its own, from the IOC, the Chicago Tribune's Phil Hersh reports today.
It apparently didn't mean much to USOC leaders roughing it at a Sun Valley confab. They barged ahead with previous plans to announce the new network, anyway. And then they feigned surprise at word of raised IOC hackles.
This comes on top, recall, of an ongoing, long-simmering dispute between the two groups over distribution of international broadcast and sponsorship revenues -- a split that much of the rest of the Olympic world believes unfairly favors the United States. That dispute was put on hold recently, much to the relief of Chicago 2016 organizers looking down the barrel of an Oct. 2 IOC host city selection vote. This is the critical time period when peace and calm generally are expected to reign, not only in bidding cities, but between the bidding nations and the IOC."

The USOC, the people who put in the Chicago bid, have been trying to undermine the International Olympic Commitee, prompting Seattle Times to mention, "No sooner had USOC leaders Wednesday finished trumpeting their new, long-discussed U.S. Olympic Network, a joint venture with Comcast expected to launch sometime in 2010, than International Olympic Committee officials were responding angrily to what they called a pattern of American arrogance."

Simply put, a bid that was rife with problems at all levels failed as it should have, yet now the US wants to world to believe they were wronged, even as they are trying to undermine a legally agreed upon deal...

Power

Today, I came along an alarming letter to the editor...it said, "I was dismayed with the front page headline in Wednesday's Telegraph-Journal: "Radical Refit Proposal." What was particularly disheartening was the bizarre recommendation put forward (halt Lepreau refurbishment) and the suspect credibility of the avowed anti-nuke from which it came" and "What the media reports and what I see as a Lepreau worker do not mesh. The project is not in total disarray. Yes, the project is now over half a year behind schedule. There are reasons. I will defer the explanation to project management.
Fortunately, the delays are not due to the condition of the reactor.
Reactor disassembly is basically complete. Inspections have confirmed those reactor components not being replaced to be in remarkably good condition. No serious degradation issues have been encountered.
Of course, the "real" refurbishment capital cost will now exceed the original $1.022 billion by some percentage (guesstimate: less than 25 per cent). A new CANDU 6 reactor would cost over $5 billion.
What about replacement energy costs?
The infamous "$million/day" represents what Lepreau saves when it operates. Sure it hurts provincial cash flow now. But it will be made up over the reactor's extended life."


And why is this alarming? Well, first off, this is a Lepreau worker writing to the Telegraph Journal about how great Lepreau is and what a wing-bat the anti-nuclear expert is...even though the wing-bat is an expert on the subject; whereas, the author of the letter is merely someone trying to fight to make their job doesn't disappear...

Secondly, he is suggesting that the media is lying about the progress of the project...except that all the updates the media get are from the project team.

And even worse, most of the details are off and are off significantly...we are not six months behind, we are EIGHTEEN...he is throwing 250 million dollars over-budget around as if it were a small figure, and then he throws the cost of the CANDU reactor out there...the problem with these monetary aspects is that if we decide to go another route, it will involve not using nuclear, making the cost of a new CANDU 6 reactor completely useless.

The condition of Point Lepreau has NOTHING to do with why the expert suggested that we take a step back...the current financial strain it is putting the province under in a time of economic uncertainty is...if the province does not step back and at least hear proposals on other energy sources (most notably, those that are renewable), then this will be a massive failure to the people on their part...they owe it to the taxpayers to see what hydroelectric would cost in terms of environmental costs and real costs, what wind power would cost in terms of environmental and real costs, and what other renewable energy sources are out there to be had.

One of the worst arguments I have ever heard to justify continuing poor practices is to save jobs...the fact of the matter is that the workers at Lepreau are skilled workers, who could find work elsewhere, especially with whatever energy replaces Lepreau...the only workers who potentially could be out of a job are those whose entire job is to monitor how badly working in a nuclear environment is destroying the workers (and even they could find other work, since most of them have education). No business should get preferential treatment at the expense of the people, just because they employ people...that is why a lot of people hate the airline industry (because they live off this same advantage)...

Whether the Liberals pause the project for a day, a week, or even a month to hear what potential energies could replace Point Lepreau, the possibility of having a more efficient power source which is better for the environment (and which isn't a massive target for would-be terrorists) is one that cannot be overlooked...and the kicker is that we are already off-track, meaning that pushing work back a little bit won't do significantly more damage financially...

Student strike in Venezuela against the taking of political prisoners by President Hugo Chavez

From the Telegraph-Journal, "Student activist Angel Arellano said Wednesday that 163 people - mostly students - have joined the protest since last week, when 10 students set up cots outside the OAS offices in Caracas and vowed to consume only water until the Washington-based group's Interamerican Commission of Human Rights promises to launch a probe. " The strike is in protest after President Hugo Chavez has arrested nearly 40 students for protesting the government...it is estimated that in the last seven years, over 2000 people have been arrested for protesting against the government.

This is after some mayors and governors complained to the Organization of American States about Hugo Chavez's violations of the constitution. The mayor of Caracas (Antonio Ledezma) even went as far as having a hunger strike of his own for 5 days until he was hospitalized (picture below is from El Universal, July 10, 2009) ...

While we pride ourselves on encouraging freedom of speech, Venezuela is arresting anyone who disagrees with the viewpoint of their president...OAS secretary general, Jose Miguel Insulza, has said that he sympathizes with the students and believes that the IACHR should visit Venezuela (http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/09/30/en_pol_esp_insulza-pleads-for-i_30A2819291.shtml), but, alas, Hugo Chavez has denied several requests for IACHR to visit the country to review their policies and investigate the human rights complaints...

The official comment on this is that, "Attorney General Luisa Ortega says Chavez adversaries who have been arrested committed crimes ranging from disturbing the peace to assaulting police officers. "

Protesting against someone who has no concern for the law (especially when they are the leader of the nation) is a natural part of democracy...but at some point, there needs to be an investigation into whether Chavez has committed these acts...an investigation that needs to be carried out by an external source (namely the IACHR)...it is about time they get their say...