Welcome to my World

Busy boys - 1st half

2009-08-23T15:07:18Z

So with their mom out of town the boys have been busy. Not just in trying to wear me out either (although that would explain why I keep falling asleep on the couch). Aside from the periodic repetition of, 'where mama?' from Sam they seem okay with the absence as long as they get their phone calls. Matthieu occasionally picks up the phone and asks what his mom's number is.

Yesterday Matthieu went with his grand-parents to Upper Canada Village. Despite his usual pre-activity attitude of 'I don't want to go', 'nobody asked me', 'old stuff is stupid' etc. he had a great time and loved going on the train, the horse ride (apparently his favourite part was candy...). He was exhausted upon arrival and asked to be carried into his room to continue the car-induced nap.

Meanwhile Sam helped me out with shopping (or at least pricing building materials). He was very good and seemed to enjoy being asked his opinion. He told me he's already planned what he wants to do for his mother upon her return. He patiently sat on my lap during haircut time and enjoyed his 'treat' of lunch at McD. He did his afternoon napping in the car. Occasionally I would ask him what he was doing and he would quietly reply, 'sleepin daddy', followed by snoring noises.

Together the boys behave pretty much as they usually do; alternating between playing together and fighting (followed by seeming puzzled and giggling when I tell them to stop).

Anyway, everyone has survived the first half of Mama's (or Momma's if they're talking English) trip. Let's see how the rest goes!

all in the pronunciation

2009-08-09T21:30:03Z

Son: some odd question that only a 4 year old would come up with.
Dad: 'Who would know that?'
Son (matter of factly): 'God.'
Dad: 'How should we ask him?'
Son: 'We need to go on a higher plane.'
Dad: '...pardon?'
Son: 'We need to go on a higher plane to talk to God.'
Dad: '...ummm. What?'
After a bit, I realize that 'Higher plane' sounds an awful lot like, 'High airplane'.

Lu

2009-02-27T21:12:41Z

Thanks Lu.

Completely unnecessary but most appreciated.

Even forced me to make a new icon.....

For my wife...

2009-01-30T17:47:09Z

This is doing the rounds and I'm sure she would enjoy sinking her carnivorous teeth into it.

BACON EXPLOSION

What Next?

2008-12-02T05:36:49Z

So what's going to happen? Narrow escape for the government (with a small contingent of Ignatieff or Rae supporters getting the flu)? Election again (unlikely but possible)? Coalition of Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québecois (for as long as that lasts)?

Even if the prime minister prorogues, it merely delays one of the above 3 scenarios.

So I find myself curious as to how this will play out in the medium to longer term. A lot of that will depend on the actions taken by the various players (and how the public reacts to same).

My starting point in trying to figure out what actions will happen is motivation. Of course trying to figure out another person's heart is a dubious exercise, but here's what I've got so far:

Harper - wanted to sink the Bloc (and therefore pick up his missing seats in Québec next time) with the added benefit of a few more years of Liberal weakness. He'll do what he can to hang on.

Layton - power, at almost any price. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but what price will he be willing to pay? And who really pays it?

Dion - redemption. Maybe revenge. Still, the opportunity to humiliate Harper was probably too great to resist. How far will he be willing to go and will he try to hang on in the face of other Liberal leaders in waiting? Will that create a lot of behind the scenes squabling?

Ignatieff and Rae - likely very mixed feelings....if this was a stable coalition then hey, one of them might be PM in a few months. On the other hand a brand new Liberal leader would be a sorely tempting moment for other parties to bring down the government....

Duceppe....what is his motivation? We know he doesn't much care who's running Canada as he wants out. The Bloc's stated position in the past was to make Parliament unworkable (permanent trip to the dentist ring any bells?). What price is he going to extract and how much are Layton (power, at almost any cost, remember) and Dion going to be willing to pay?

That's the really important question in all this. Duceppe will be looking for advantage in this. That does not come with a smoothly functioning government of Canada and a recovering (or technically still growing) economy. He needs to be the cat among the pigeons; it's why he's there. What does he want? Why does he want it? Will the other coalition leaders give it to him (they have to or the coalition falls)? What will be the ultimate price paid by the country?

Michaelle Jean - probably wishes she could stay out of town. She has a series of difficult decisions to make; contrary to a lot of commentary, there is very little historical precedent for any of this. Most related events had more to distinguish them from this situation than to liken them.

Say it ain't so, Elizabeth!

2008-10-09T04:07:47Z

So it seems Harper was right. Elizabeth May has endorsed strategic voting in order to elect a Liberal government, just as he predicted she would.

For what it's worth, as someone who's second choice is the Greens and wants to see them do well, this is very disappointing. I figured the prime minister was off base on this one and that May would keep her eye on the long game of building a strong Green party. She has just betrayed some of her own candidates in my eyes.

People have the right to vote strategically if they so choose. That's just as legitimate as choosing to vote for a losing cause (either as a protest or to help fund a smaller party). As someone who gives a lot of time and effort to political campaigns, something about telling your own supporters not to vote for your candidates just doesn't sit right....

This could set them back years.

Things they say

2008-10-09T03:03:13Z

Recent things heard in my car, around the dinner table and at the supermarket (I'll leave it to your imaginations whether they came from the 3 year-old, the 1 year-old or the wife)....

"Daddy, how do you regenerate?"
'?'
"You know, like grow back an arm."...

"Four. Four. Fff. Ffff. Fffff. F. Four starts with an F!"
"Two. Tuh. Tuh. Tu...T. Two starts with a T!"
"One. Wuh...Woh....Wwww. One starts with a double-U!"
'ummm....'

"I want those."
'That's too bad.'
"Why do you say that?"
'Because you can't have them.'
"Why not?"
'For the best reason in the world son. Do you know what that is?'
"....no."
'Because, I said so.'
"....Daddy, you're not helping!"

There was also something about sitting on giant sausages that did not mean at all what ran through my mind at that moment.

Green MP

2008-08-30T21:21:52Z

This could be interesting...doing what Garth Turner wouldn't, former Liberal, then independant, MP Blair Wilson is now a Green Party MP. The GP's first MP.

Why does this matter? Well one of the excuses for keeping smaller parties out of the televised leaders debates has been that only parties with elected MPs get a slot. This may be somewhat arbitrary but in defence of the networks, some kind of cut-off is needed. So we may now see Elizabeth May in the debates (in a few weeks?).

Now Mr. Wilson may never get to actually sit as a GP MP as Parliament is unlikely to be back in session before the election call, so it may not be enough. I suspect that the pressure from the 10% of GP supporters will be sufficient interest for the networks to want her there.

Now whose advantage is it for her to be there?
- The population of course as we get more coverage of the issues from the GP perspective.
- The Green Party also, of course. This can only help them.
- Not the NDP or the Liberals (or Bloc?) who in theory are pulling from the same pool of voters; this could hurt them.
- The Tories? Might further split their opponents' votes. Might also highlight their perceived weakness on the environment...assuming they don't have something in mind (could the regulations that were due this fall end up looking more dramatic than expected?).

This could have a major impact, but how? Let's just say it's a trigger of a wildcard.....

Sam

2008-08-29T09:58:08Z

Sam's on the way to the children's hospital for his eye duct 'surgery'. Poor kid isn't allowed to eat anything this morning nor drink anything after 5:15. Hopefully he sleeps in the car.

Once Matthieu is dropped off when daycare opens I will join Samuel and Karine. Should be quick and easy, still it is surgery under general....

Tax or Trade

2008-08-29T03:49:58Z

Warning - economic terms flow freely below.....

I sent the following quick response to Henry Aubin's column in today's gazoo.

He was writing on the advantages of a carbon tax over a cap and trade system and I wanted to synthesize a few of my thoughts on the issue that seem to be missing from most media coverage.

M. Aubin,

Just a quick comment on today's column regarding a carbon tax vs cap and trade.
While undoubtedly both techniques can (should?) contribute to the goal of reducing emissions, I felt your analysis (I use the term loosely as it was just a column and not a paper after all) of the efficacy of cap and trade was a little one-sided. You are not alone in this; I have seen similar commentary elsewhere.

Several points are missed by cap and trade's critics:
1) it has been used with great success before - specifically in the fight against acid rain where NOX and SOX objectives were exceeded by a significant margin - so we know it does work, even in North America and that the regulatory framework already exists at least in template form. Energy on the other hand is a fairly inelastic product, so the impact of a carbon tax is hard to gauge. To date, oil has gone from $13 to almost $150 a barrel in just a few years with limited reduction in consumption, it seems likely that a few more cents is not going to take us over a tipping point. At least I have seen no evidence that we know where that tipping point would be.

2) while it is true that at a macro economic level cap and trade would impose similar pain for similar levels of reductions, I do not believe it is accurate to suggest that individuals will necessarily feel the same effects. The notion that any cost imposed on a business just flows through to consumers is not borne out by basic supply-demand theory (there are shifts in consumer and producer surplus). Given that higher prices usually lead to lower profits, there is incentive to keep prices and costs low. That creates an incentive to look for solutions rather than just higher costs. Often times scale plays a role here as industries can find solutions that aren't available at the individual level.

In a recent interview (probably CBC radio), Marc Jaccard made the point as follows: as a consumer, what did you do to cut back on the use of CFCs to help restore the ozone layer? Answer is nothing; it was regulations that forced corporations to come up with an alternative and at the end of the day they were able to do so at minimal cost to themselves and therefore did not need to pass any costs on to consumers.

3) tradeable permits allow for smooth integration into international systems, creating the largest possible market and thus the greatest opportunities to maximize reductions at minimal cost. A tax does not and risks getting into carbon tarrifs which could be the thin edge of the wedge into any number of restrictions on free and fair trade which in the end could hurt consumers and producers (meaning those of us with jobs) very hard.

There are other advantages, and no doubt disadvantages, but I thought this would at least be a fair counter-point.

Regards,

Adam Davies

Any flaws in my reasoning/anything to add?

Anyone Want a Duck?

2008-05-27T18:51:42Z

Plastic one that is...

The Lakeshore Hospital's annual duck race fundraiser is on. For ten bucks you get coupons of about that value (Dominos, Dagwoods, McDonalds) plus a shot at winning cars, TVs, vacations and various other things too blurry for me to make out...

More importantly you could help out the hospital with medical equipment.

I've been asked to sell a few of these, so...umm let me know.

They can be trained

2008-05-02T15:47:46Z

Feeling experimental (and thirsty) at supper last night I asked Matthieu (who had already eaten) if he would like to do me a favour.
He said yes (not yet being a teenager), so I asked him if he could fetch me a beer from the garage.

He happily jumped down from the couch, put on his shoes (!) went to the garage and brought be back a bottle of Harp.

This is sooooo cool!

He feeds the cat and brings me beer.

Now what else can I get him to do?

T minus 13: birthdays or bronchitis...

2008-02-27T04:34:10Z

I vote for birthdays.
Given that my lungs are at least not worse than yesterday (might even go as far as less bad) I'm going to surmise that I have successfully evaded the less pleasant possibility (I have just jinxed myself, haven't I?).

So more importantly, Happy Birthday Samuel. I know you have no clue what today is (no matter how many times your brother told you) but you did seem to enjoy the cards (and the presents from Charlotte and her 3 big brothers) and were in a good mood. Unlike your brother you didn't get into a fist fight, so I think we can consider this a successful first attempt at a birthday.

You have passed your first year and accomplished quite a lot:
Learned to breathe.
Learned to cry.
Learned to make sounds not entirely unrelated to words (mama, dada, iattieu).
Learned to drink from a breast.
Learned to drink from a bottle.
Learned to use a straw.
Learned to drink from a cup (sorta).
Learned to eat.
Learned to feed yourself (ish).
Learned to crawl.
Learned to climb.
Learned to climb down.
Learned to stand.
Learned to walk.
Learned to 'share'.
Learned to fight back.
Learned to cuddle.
Learned to nod 'No'.
Learned to remove footwear (sigh).
Grew teeth.
Grew hair (you simply must teach me that trick).
Grew taller.
Grew lovable.

Not bad at all.

Next up:
Learn to not squirm at diaper changing time.
Learn to sleep in on weekends (and teach your brother).
Learn to not grow up too quickly.

Happy Birthday Sam.

T minus 15 (16 missed due to illness...)

2008-02-25T03:39:01Z

Well, work preparations are ongoing...backups almost done. Yay.

Getting really tired of this whole sick thing. Sigh. At least it's the weekend, so some rest was possible.

STATUS: Breathing = difficult...

T minus 17

2008-02-23T03:31:24Z

had an exam...
ate some dinner...
not sure if flu or drugs are winning...

either way, same effect....

STATUS: fatigued....

T minus 19 (ish)

2008-02-21T05:52:58Z

well it's past midnight, so this is kind of cheating...but then so is the countdown.

Nothing directly related of relevance to report today... a few more people know. More time spent wishing Outlook and Windows Explorer didn't feel the need to pause for extended periods when I select files or right click...or move a file...or sneeze...or think about doing anything...

I really should stop going to doctors; they keep telling me bad things.

2 weeks ago I go to see one about a sore throat that could not have been strep and she tells me it's strep. Once I get off those antibiotics I get a cold. I mention this to my doctor while getting a refill and he asks what the symptoms are. I describe the cold symptoms (pretty much how I feel most of the time really) and he tells me it's flu!
I expect I'll soon find out that excema is leprosy and asthma is empthysema.....

Had a good post class cider (or two) with the Lazy Mage^TM, so I guess I can't complain...even sa the lunar eclipse. Might have watched it for longer if only that promised global warming would kick in.

STATUS:...tired...sick...but home;-)

100 years

2008-02-20T04:54:36Z

Just like to say that in almost 100 years, the Canadien have never before come back from a 5-0 deficit to win a game...

Wow.

Message to Bob Gainey; after this, you are better off not to trade for a rent-a-player. Don't risk this chemistry. Hey, Ryder is finally shooting (and so scoring).

Anyone actually think the Habs would be in 1st place a few weeks back?

The best games are the ones that you almost turn the TV off for...

T minus 20

2008-02-20T04:02:32Z

Man my laptop is slow...just right-clicking on a file that needs to be filed can cause it to go non-responsive.

STATUS: Still sick...

T minus 21

2008-02-19T04:41:11Z

Starting filing 7 years' worth of emails....

STATUS: sick...bleh. Finish taking the antibiotics and less than a week later, here comes something else...grmmble grrmble...

At least it will be passed in 21 days. Hell, at the rate this winter is going, I will likely be into my 3rd 'cold' after this one by then...

Is minionism contagious?

2008-02-16T16:45:14Z

or just a natural state?

Overheard in the car last night...

"Knock Knock"
...
"Knock Knock"
...
"Daddy, KNOCK KNOCK"

'Who's There?'

"A cow."

'A cow who?'

"Moo!" Followed by Hysterical Laugh^TM

I'm certain I have heard this story somewhere before...

Green Republicans?

2008-01-14T02:50:23Z

Interesting idea from David Frum of all people.

He is suggesting that the Republicans should adopt a carbon tax as a route to winning the next election...

Seems unlikely, I know, but then again, it is looking like John McCain could be their nominee and he is the guy that worked with Lieberman to get climate change legislation through the US senate.

Maybe it's not that likely, but when the guy who coined, "axis of evil" for Bush is calling for a carbon tax (and various other good ideas) in his new book, you never know.

And hey if the Republicans do it, maybe our government will be able to swallow it...

Assistance please.

2007-10-07T04:09:22Z

A teacher friend is looking for a short story he read in high school but can't find it.

Maybe you can help?

The story was set on Mars and was a none too subtle allegory for the cold war. The Martians are discussing how best to help the poor people of Earth, but are divided on never defined philosophical lines. The discussion gets more heated as they discuss dividing Earth into North and South and sending in the Martian advisors. There is talk of dividing Earth into West Earth and East Earth and building a wall to separate them (see 'none too subtle').

The story ends with the debate raging and one Martian declaring that "we will use the..." The last word is a nonsense word, made up for the story, but is meant to imply some horrific weapon.

Anyone?

Your Own Private Kyoto

2007-05-11T03:54:53Z

Something interesting has occurred to me about the government's new Green Plan and the response to it.

One of the chief criticisms of it is that it won't meet our Kyoto commitments of a 35 or 40% GHG emissions cut by January. A middle ground criticism is that it doesn't miss by just a bit but by a lot (we would theoretically meet that target in the early to mid 2020s).

Assume for a minute that the public aren't necessarily expecting a 40% cut in 8 months but would accept say a 20% cut in 2 or 3 years as a pretty good start (always hard to know what the public really want because they tend to answer polling questions in a contradictory manor such as 'we should meet Kyoto' and I should get cheaper gas).
The interesting thing is that the plan (as reported on, anyway) calls for industry to cut emissions by 18% by 2010.

Now as near as I can tell there are 2 broad segments of society responsible for emissions: industry and people. So if industry has a target of an 18% cut by 2010 but the country as a whole only has a target of 20% by 2020, then it looks suspiciously like the people are getting a free ride here.

Hmm, politicians not asking voters to sacrifice (especially in a minority situation). I'm shocked.

Still, there is good news. If industry are being forced to do their part but people are not, then YOU (and I) have a choice. Make your cuts before 2020. Match the 2010 target. Or better it. Whatever, but essentially this has been put in your hands. You want the country to meet Kyoto (or even a compromise step in the right direction)? Good. Here's your chance to prove it. You know what industry is being regulated to do. The rest is up to you.

Consider it your own private Kyoto accord.

Energy vs Time

2007-05-11T03:38:25Z

One suggestion for saving energy that I periodically run across is to unplug your TV and peripherals when you're not watching them. It even gets pointed out how convenient this is in the UK where electrical outlets come complete with an on/off switch. North Americans, it is recommended, should just use the switch on the power bar.

I can only conclude that the people suggesting this either don't own a TV or can't do the math.

Apparently average TVs use about 20 to 50 times as much power when on as when on standby (140 watts vs 3-7 watts). Now when the power has been out (thankfully less common today than when I was a kid) and I want to watch TV, the process goes something like this (depending on what hardware I had at the time):
Reboot PVR (5 minutes or so).
Reprogram VCR (5 to 10 minutes while it scans through the cable channels).
Reprogram the TV (another 5 to 10 minutes).

So conservatively, it's 20 minutes extra during which your TV is on than it otherwise would be. Even leaving aside the gross waste of time, you would need your TV to be unplugged for 17 hours between each watching just to break even in this process. And that doesn't included the power for the other devices or the lights you probably have on in the room.

Now, in an ideal world, electronics would come with a cmos battery equivalent to store programming (although logically, these would need to draw the equivalent of that standby power anyway, just in advance). However, as far as I know most of them don't (not being designed for our electrical grid, I suppose).

So, are the people making this suggestion:
a) non TV owners
b) stupid
c) running around with massive amounts of spare time
d) possessing of some secret way of having their TVs stay programmed without power?

What do you think? Do you have any workable ideas?

What's in a date?

2007-04-30T03:19:33Z

So I recently sent

Good evening, I was wondering if you could tell me why it is that CTV, along with most other media outlets, continually misrepresents Canada's Kyoto commitment as a 6% drop from 1990 GHG emissions by 2012 when it is actually by 2008?

That is, it must average that amount over the period 2008 to 2012. So while technically we could wait to 2012 to be below that level, we would have to be massively below that level in order to compensate for 2008 to 2011.

This may be the most important issue facing the planet today, and still too many in the media can't be bothered to do basic arithmetic and inform the public accordingly.

I would be most interested in hearing CTV's response to this question.

Regards,

Adam Davies, Montréal

in response to one of their stories on Kyoto and/or the federal government's plan to cut GHG emissions by 20% from today's levels over the next 13 years (equivalent to about a 50% cut from where they are currently heading).

It might at first blush seem pedantic to ask why they keep reporting that our target date (or year) to meet Kyoto is 2012 rather than 2008 through 2012, but it really isn't. It makes the world of difference.

By definition, for every tonne of CO2 we are over in 2008 (or 2009, 2010 and 2011) we need to be under by that amount before the end of 2012. To put it in context, if we assume a straight line reduction in emissions, that means that if we are over by 40% in 2008 (8 months from now)but can be on target by 2010, we need to be 40% under by the end of 2012. For those of you counting (so not the media), that means an almost 80% cut from where we are today. In 5 years. Given the marginal difficulty of cutting emissions (that is the last 10% is generally a lot harder than the first 10% - think trying to lose 40 pounds; 0-10 not so hard, 30-40 usually pretty tough), it may actually be harder to get down by 80% in 5 years than by 40% in 8 months.

Regardless, my main beef is that the comparison the media is pushing is 40% in 5 years and this would not constitute meeting our obligations under the Kyoto accord.

In all honesty, I don't see how we can cut 40% in 8 months OR 80% in 5 years (frankly doubt we could do 40% in 5 years either) in any useful way (meaning not just shutting down a cement-works here to build one in the US and buy the cement from there). If we had started 13 years ago, then it would have been no sweat. Sadly, no one wanted to do anything about it, so it was left until now. Talk about procrastination; let's wait until we reach the tipping point and then figure out that we should have already acted a decade ago!

Here's the thing - as long as the media mis-represent the facts, the politicians, industrialists and consumers all get a free ride. People need to really understand what's at stake, where we are and what needs to be done to get out of this mess.

So why do you think the media are using the wrong date? Are they deliberately misleading the public for some (unknown) sinister goal? Are they really that bad with numbers that they can't even manage the difference between 2008 and 2012?

Anything else you can come up with?

More importantly, how do we get them to stop?