Finding a New Big Man vs. Presidential Elections

Although elections around the world are increasingly a testament to who can raise the most money, the point is most clearly visible in America (although Harper has ended all public funding in Canada which seems to be one giant step in the same direction) where the supreme court has upheld the rights of corporations (which are people) to spend as much money (which is speech) as they so desire. When this is coupled with the fact that "Super PACs" can do all of this fundraising and advertising without even disclosing their donor list there is a situation where it is very clear that money buys elections.
Since elected officials owe their jobs to this system and are clearly skilled in the raising of funds, they have no incentive to bring about change. The supreme court doesn't seem to have any desire to change the system. The population as a whole seems quite apathetic to the issue. With all of this it is easy to believe that the system will continue for at least the foreseeable future.
My suggestion is to take a look at the nature of the "Big Man" from hunter gather societies for a new answer. I remember watching a movie called "Ongka's Big Moka" in a first year anthropology class that details how a tribe uses potlaching (gift-based economy) to decide who will be the next "Big Man" or the de facto leader of all the connected tribes. You can see part 1/7 below and click through on Youtube for the rest of the movie.



My suggestion is that American politics work in the same way. Start the four year election cycle with multiple candidates around America trying to use as much as their personal wealth as possible to secure donations from other people. As stronger candidates emerge others will undoubtedly capitulate and push all of their funds toward those stronger candidates in hopes of garnering some favour under the new regime. As divergent candidates arise people will undoubtedly donate what they can afford or as much as they are willing to, to whichever candidate they agree with the most. Admittedly there would still be a need for advertising as candidates grow strong enough to bring their campaigns to the national level but they would need to maintain a large surplus of wealth for their ultimate gift. Finally when one candidate manages to outshine all the rest, he or she would then take all of the funds they have remaining and disperse it evenly to the populous as a whole. At least then a large portion of the money raised would go to people who need it instead of large advertising and media firms. I don't know exactly how much the average person would receive but probably enough for a decent lunch for everyone in America. Not too shabby. The State of the Union address would get a lot more viewers if the President had to buy everyone a sandwich to eat during the speech.

Some Innocent Regicide

If England were to ever end their monarchy, which I hope they don't and doubt they will, it would be a real shame if they allowed the royal family to seek refuge in a foreign country nor would it be fair to force them to live out their existence in relative obscurity. It would be unfair and a missed opportunity.
The only fair thing to do would be to bring every member of the royal family to the chopping block in the Tower of London. The summary executions would make the perfect occasion for one final royal event complete with all the necessary pageantry.

These are the things I think about...

Japan's Post-Disaster Social Upheaval

I read a lot about how Japan's social order hasn't broke down in the wake of a major earthquake, tsunami, nuclear disaster, thousands of aftershocks and an ongoing power shortage but I have to disagree. Signs of stress and social breakdowns are less extreme but easily visible.
In western cities drug abuse is blatant, thievery is rampant and gang violence isn't uncommon. When you consider this as the null state a social breakdown must mean mass riots, looting and a complete breakdown of the economy. Anything less wouldn't even register.
Japan, like many East Asian nations, is highly ordered. Rules are strictly enforced and breaking social or legal conventions is severely punished. Children learn from a young age to follow rules. As an elementary school teacher I can say that the overlying theme of primary education here is to produce Japanese adults. Education as we think of it , the three 'R's is incidental to creating another generation with the same values as their ancestors.
With that in mind one needs to pay more attention to see the break down of Japanese society. By comparison it seems ludicrous but some of the examples that come to mind are people are standing on the wrong side of escalators, more people are walking while smoking and some staples are still sold out at times. I have even heard discussion of government ordered changing of company dress codes to reduce energy use this summer.
It isn't the riots or looting we see during hurricanes in America but when you consider the starting points it is a similar escalation of anti-social behaviour.

Why you Should or Should not vote for Harper

A quick sample of my friends online activity shows that about a third of them vote conservative. About half of those are either voting conservative for the wrong reason or are unwilling to admit publicly why they are voting conservative. Many of my friends have business or economics backgrounds and flatly state they are voting conservative because the conservatives are better equipped to run an economy.
This, to paraphrase PM Harper, is simply not true. If we look historically the economies of Canada and America almost always grow quicker when the liberals or Democrats are in power. Furthermore the government tends to run a more balanced budget under left leaning governments.
This shouldn't be surprising when we think about the fact that most famous, well respected, Nobel prize winning, influential economists are all liberals. Right wing policies from supply-side economics to the trickle down theory have all been proven wrong. Even the bread and butter of almost all economic beliefs, that consumption taxes are more efficient-both in collection practice as well promoting savings-was flatly ignored by PM Harper, despite his economics background as he cut the GST as part of his platform in 2006.
Now if you are voting for the conservatives because of their Christian leanings, you have a moral belief that spreading wealth through taxation policy is wrong, you are anti-gay marriage or anti-abortion then you are voting conservative for the right reasons. Those last two might not be on the table now but only because it was the reason the Canadian Alliance lost their first two elections.
I would mention the irony of voting conservative for Christian reasons is that if you remember what Jesus preached about being charitable so perhaps the NDP are the most Christian. Although economically speaking they might create a welfare state that proves to be too heavy of a burden.
How did I vote? I voted for a local candidate, not a party. If I was in a different riding I would have voted for a different party. Likewise if we had a different system, proportional representation for example, I would have voted differently.
This isn't meant to be an attack on the conservatives, although I would love to see PM Harper out of power, but just to read a little deeper than the party's one line philosophy when you choose to vote.
There is no party I agree with completely. Despite living near a nuclear disaster I think that, unlike the Green party, it shouldn't be the first target in the energy industry for dismantling.
I like that the conservatives are offering money to subsidize sports and gym memberships. Another step would be a stronger Canada food guide. Ignatieff is an accomplished writer who would surprise most people if they actually read one of his books. He is the Canadian Noam Chomsky.
Anybody who completely rejects one Party's platform has fallen into the trap politicians set for you. If the other person came up with it, it must be bad.

Online Validation

I was thinking about the parking validation systems at a lot of malls in Tokyo and thought that it would be possible to adapt this system into a cross-promotional advertising program between Internet providers and major online stores. Essentially when you go to the mall you pay a certain amount per hour for using their parking garage. Now when you go to certain shops or restaurants within the mall you get a voucher to use toward your parking expense. Likewise when you spend a lot of money at the mall the amount of vouchers above the price of parking is voided as they are only valid on the day of purchase. Essentially people that use a mall's parking lot while downtown or plan to enjoy some window-shopping must pay for parking but those who have a shopping agenda can use the parking service for free or at a discounted rate.
My thought is that you could adopt this system online. With the onset of open ID accounts that allow people to use the same username to log onto multiple websites it would be possible to track a person's online shopping to give a discount toward their monthly Internet bill. People who consistently use the Internet to make purchases would see the websites they use paying some portion of their bill to keep the user online shopping more. Likewise someone who makes a single large purchase, like an airline ticket, might receive a free month of Internet but to limit the discount to reduce the cost incurred by the shop, the shopper would not be able to carry over any accumulated discount to the following month's bill. It would be possible for websites to make deals with specific Internet providers in each country or region which would allow local Internet providers to use these deals in advertising. I think you would also see a lot of companies offering an initial or first purchase discount with some lower discount on subsequent purchases. Likewise, with viral advertising and person to person advertising becoming so popular it would be possible to offer vouchers to those who refer their friends and peers to a particular website.

Why does Canada lag in its treatment of expatriates?

I have been living overseas for nearly four years now. As such I believe that between my personal experience, and the fact that I tend to research issues important to me to a nearly compulsive level, I am moving toward expert status with regard to my knowledge of not just the way the Canadian government views its expatriates but how contemporary countries treat their citizens living overseas.
The recent earthquake that hit Japan is the second major issue to afflict foreigners in Japan since I moved here. The first was the collapse of NOVA, a large employer of English language teachers. NOVA accounted for about half of the entire English language industry in Japan when I landed in Tokyo. It was also my first employer in the country. Within the next two months NOVA had gone bankrupt leaving about 5000 foreigners unemployed. This lead to the Australian government to offer its citizens flights home, New Zealand and England quickly added support to their citizens and it was finally America's influence that lead the Japanese government to offer us the same level of unemployment support as Japanese citizens. The Canadian government did nothing and as far as I was told by my friends and family back home this didn't even make news in Canada.
I am not comparing this to the tragedy that has befallen the whole of Japan with the recent earthquake but it is the only other case where foreign governments could have provided help, most that had affected citizens did and the Canadian government remained silent. The current position of Canada with regard to helping Canadians in Japan deal with potential radiation poisoning, according to the Canadian Embassy website,"Government of Canada offices abroad are not in a position to provide medicine or medical treatment to Canadian citizens who have chosen to travel or reside outside of Canada" is a complete farce. This is completely untrue. Canada is a wealthy country with a well funded government. The website should read "Government of Canada offices are unwilling to provide medicine or medical treatment to Canadian citizens who have chosen to travel or reside outside of Canada".
The notion, presumably, is that Canadians who can afford to travel to Japan can pay for their own radiation treatment or flights home. In fact this was explicitly echoed by Harper recently. "There continues to be a large scale normal, for the most part normal, commercial airline service from Japan so it people want to leave they have that option." This is not always the case. A lot of people teaching English in Japan live on very low incomes and subsist month to month on barely enough money to survive. This issue is compounded for anybody working as an assistant language teacher (ALT) at a government school because the January pay cheque is smaller due to the 3.5 week holiday over Christmas and New Years. When you add in that Japanese tradition dictates a monthly pay period it would be difficult for a lot of people to afford a flight home.
As for radiation treatment, potassium iodide (KI) is currently being purchased across the west coast of North America by people worried, rather absurdly, by the radiation cloud heading East across the Pacific via the jet stream. This same treatment is quickly being purchased in Japan to the point that it is nearly impossible to find. That is, assuming, one even has the ability to read enough Japanese to find medication.
For the moment I still think that it is premature to call for evacuation of foreign nationals or to hand out medication to all of a country's citizens. This is not, by any means, a cry for help. I am still confident that my decision to stay in Japan was the right choice. I also personally take a mutli-vitamin everyday that contains an appropriate amount of potassium iodide but there is a level of callousness being showed by the Canadian government that makes me sick.
My friend from Norway got a phone call from his ambassador a few hours after the earthquake to make sure he was OK. Further to that the Norwegian and British embassies hosted Q&A sessions with nuclear physicists to explain the situation in Fukushima. The UK embassy is also handing out free KI pills to all of its citizens and offering free or discounted flights out of the country. America has chartered flights for any citizens wishing to leave and giving people up to 90 days to pay back the price of the ticket. Meanwhile the price of an Air Canada flight to Canada has more than tripled since the earthquake. France and Germany have come out and told their citizens to leave the area. This is probably inappropriate and caused a lot of fear but at least it shows they care about people.

Japanese Parenting

I was walking home from work today and stumbled upon the following scene:
Yes. A child of about 2 years sitting in the middle of the road without an adult in sight. If you can't tell from my terrible camera work, the child is sitting in the middle of the one lane slightly hidden from the intersecting road by a large wall. Japanese people drive on the left side of the road so someone could make that short turn and not see the child because of the wall obscuring the view.
Now someone might point out that instead of helping the child I just walked by and took a photo and this is true but I would rather do that then say yell at the child to go home and be accused of trying to kidnap it or something.

Hindu View on Overpopulation

If the Hindus are correct and the whole idea of reincarnation is true than wouldn't overpopulation and massive herds of cows be a sign that souls are being promoted at a higher rate? I mean lower species are disappearing at an accelerated pace while higher species, like us, are increasing quickly. Or if you look at the spread of much lower species like jellyfish and cockroaches than perhaps we can see an ever increasing divide between the karma rich and poor. This great divide needs immediate legislative intervention to close the karma gap.

Ex-Cop, Current Selfish Bitch, growing tobacco in New York

The New York Times ran a biopic on Audrey Silk, a retired police officer living in Brooklyn. Her complaint? The loss of smoker's rights and increased taxation of tobacco products. The solution? Growing her own tobacco in her backyard, cleaning the leaves in her kitchen and curing it in her basement.

I suppose I can start by saying that smokers have no rights and deserve no special treatment. Smoking is a choice. It is also something that can change. If a smoker is upset about being harassed or feels smoking is a hassle they can quit. It is not exactly the same thing as a sexual orientation or racial background. To argue that smokers deserve any special rights is ludicrous. All other qualities being equal, I would never hire a smoker because they waste time with excessive breaks.

If I lived in America, where health insurance is an issue, I would likely hire someone less qualified who doesn't smoke. Audrey Silk when contemplating the most recent New York smoking ban, this one disallowing public smoking in parks and on beaches, said this would make smoker's rights advocates "apoplectic" which is rather ironic because although it is used to describe someone in a rage it literally means someone afflicted by stroke a known risk of smoking. Coincidentally, the risk of stroke and other serious health risks, are the reasons that governments around the world are trying to reduce smoking rates through taxation and the impact of second hand smoke through public smoking bans.

With regard to this Audrey Silk argues "They’re using the power of taxation to coerce behavior. That’s not what taxation is supposed to be for.” I would say, no Audrey, this is exactly how taxation should be used. When companies or people consume products that have a negative affect on other people, through pollution, health risks or social nuisance the government has a duty to charge a tax equal to those costs, often referred to as externalities, as a way to compensate those who have to deal with the negative consequences of that consumption. Taxing loud night clubs, tobacco, alcohol, carbon emissions, etc. have both the short term benefit of raising funds to compensate victims as well as also reducing long term consumption of those products that society deems an unnecessary burden.

Smoking by its very nature is a selfish action. It is something that people who care more about a small amount of personal enjoyment than upsetting countless people in their vicinity. For this reason it was not surprising that later Audrey added

"The authorities, she added, should not be concerned that she might be illegally selling her cigarettes.

“I make meatballs,” Ms. Silk said, by way of explanation. “My recipe is a four-hour ordeal. My biggest loved ones do not get any. When I have to put a lot of work into something, I don’t share.”"

Finally just a small thing. Audrey argues that her tobacco farming is a big middle finger to the authorities to which I wonder if, perhaps, at some point in time as a police officer if she didn't give the tazer to some person for literally doing what she now promotes. Audrey Silk, fuck you.

The Application Complication

I purchased an iPhone in September (on a side note my bill has been reduced by 60% over my previous phone which means it has been the best investment I have ever made) and have been downloading applications, or apps as the kids say, ever since. I now have around 60 apps on my phone. As the number of apps I possess increases I am starting to find classification more and more difficult.

When you have 24 or less apps arrangement is simple and folders are unnecessary. Keeping the top 12 apps, by usage, on the front page and the remainder on the last page you have a relatively simple sort. Within the front page you could arrange the apps any number of ways, by colour of symbol, alphabetically, usage, order of download, the default, etc. but all amount to the same basic thing since you can see all the apps simultaneously when you open the screen.

As I continued to download more applications and finding that three screens worth of apps would not be practical I decided to start sorting my apps into folders. When considering how to group apps the iPhone is quite intelligent in guessing names for folders - not only predicting generic titles like games or education but also more specific groups like card games or board games - but the fact is a lot of applications serve more than one purpose.

Do I put bodybuilding.com's app in with the health section along with my weight tracker and exercise video library apps, my social section because I use the bodybuilding forums or with other apps that connect to online shopping websites?

Does Google's application go with social apps because it connects me to my Gmail, reference section with Wikipedia or in utilities because it is a search engine and train map?

Once you have decided to go with folders, is it worth keeping the four or five most used items on the dashboard for easy access or will that upset your sense of order? Another issue I have found with using folders is that I am less likely to cull my apps and delete the ones that I find useless if they are hidden in a seldom used folder.

In deciding how to separate my apps that appear to fit into more than one category I have managed to avoid the pit that is to add more and more folders to the point that their function has been lost. I chose to place the apps together based on the function that I associate with the app the most. For both the examples above it has placed them along with Linkedin, Facebook and Twitter in the social folder. Finally new downloads remain on the second page, not in a folder, for a short period of time until I deem them useful and place them in a folder or summarily delete them.

Rep. Louie Gomhert (R, Texas)

Mr. Gomhert is attempting to pass legislation to allow congressmen the right to wear concealed weapons in Washington. In light of the tragedy in Arizona, where many people blame over sized 30 round clips for amplifying the carnage, Mr. Gomhert decided to go on FOX to stand up for the constitutional right to bear arms by saying
"It's not the spoons that make people fat and it's not the guns that kill people, it's people that kill people.""
Although in simplest terms this may be true but I will say that it would be far more difficult for me to manage my diet if I used a ladle instead of a spoon.