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.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Saturday, October 3, 2009
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...
"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...
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...
Thursday, October 1, 2009
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
