Mad As Hell

I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a recession. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth. Jobs are going to India. Cops are being gunned down in the street. Terrorists are running wild and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had three suicide bombers and sixty-three people were gunned down on the street, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. 

We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is: 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my smart phone and my reality TV and my Pokémon Go and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' 

Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get MAD! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman, because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the recession and the inflation and the ISIS and the terrorists in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've got to say: 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!'

So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. In November, I want you to go to the polls and tell them: 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!'

I want you to get up right now. Sit up. Go to your windows. Open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!...You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the Mexicans and the terrorists and the trade agreements. But first, get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!'

I am, of course, paraphrasing the words of the character Howard Beale; a news announcer from the 1976 movie Network, who was fired because his ratings dwindled, and managed to rebuild his following and keep his job by first announcing that he was going to kill himself on live TV and later giving tirades like the one above.  I am also paraphrasing Donald Trump almost every time he opens his mouth.  Like Howard Beale, Trump has managed to parlay peoples' fear, insecurity and frustration into an unlikely, but surprisingly large, following.  Like Beale, everybody laughed at Trump at first.  They're not laughing anymore.


We do live in troubled times and it is, perhaps, tempting to place our trust in someone who claims that he knows how to fix everything.  It happened in Germany in 1933.  Germany was suffering in the throes of the Great Depression.  Many Germans were unemployed.  The Deutschmark was practically worthless.  A man named Adolph Hitler said that he had the solution to the country's woes.  He promised the people that he would make Germany great again.  "Deutschland muss leben!" he shouted.  And he blamed the economic woes that troubled the land on the "others"; the rich, Jewish bankers who prospered at the expense of the common German people.  His uncommon oratory skills and his fiery, charismatic persona won over much of the German population and propelled him to the head of the Nazi party.  And he did it by playing to peoples' fears and legitimate frustrations.


I am not suggesting that Donald Trump is anything like Adolph Hitler; only that he is borrowing much the same formula that helped Hitler to achieve power.  I do suggest that it behoves those who look on Trump as a straight-talking savior who will make America great again to remember that Howard Beale was indeed "mad as hell".  He was insane.


George Bernard Shaw once quipped that democracy is a system ensuring that the people are governed no better than they deserve.  American voters may want to keep those words in mind come November.

Reform or Punishment?

I recently came across one of those news articles that's simultaneously funny and thought-provoking.  It's about a man by the name of Cornealious Anderson who was convicted of armed robbery in St. Louis, Missouri back in 2000 and sentenced to 13 years in jail.  Well, it's now 2014, so my keen mathematical skills tell me that he should be out by now, right?  Half-right.  He's out alright.  In fact, he never went in.

It seems that, at his sentencing, Mr. Anderson was sent home and told to await instructions as to where and when to report for his incarceration.  So he went home, undoubtedly in a bit of a funk, said his good-byes to whatever friends and family he had, called the boss and told him that he wouldn't be in to work for the next 13 years or so, and waited...

A day passed.  A week.  Two weeks.  A month...  and no police officer ever appeared at Anderson's doorstep nor did anyone ever call him on the phone to tell him when and where to report for prison.

Eventually, Anderson got tired of sitting around watching daytime soaps and Opra, waiting for the phone to ring, so he learned a new trade, started a business, met a nice girl, got married and fathered a daughter.  He did not make any attempt to leave the county, change his name or otherwise conceal his identity and he definitely did not return to his former criminal ways.  His brush with the law had scared him straight.  He paid his taxes, registered a small business, renewed his driver's licence as needed and, when he was pulled over for a couple of minor traffic violations, gave the officer his correct name and address.  Nothing in the system ever flagged him as being a convict who was somewhat overdue for incarceration.

Until last year.  Ironically, at just about the time that Anderson would have been released from prison (not taking good behavior into account), the Missouri Department of Corrections discovered the clerical error that had kept Anderson out of jail all these years.  The news article that I read doesn't explain how they discovered the error, but I have to suspect it probably had something to do with some computer read-out announcing that it was time to let Cornealious Anderson go, and only then did the law discover that he had never been locked up anywhere to be let go from.

In any case, when they discovered the error, the Missouri law enforcement community, no doubt somewhat embarrassed by the oversight, decided that "better late than never" is a valid policy where incarceration is concerned, and belatedly sent Anderson his instructions as to when and where to report for prison.  In fact, just to ensure he received the message, they sent a SWAT team to deliver it.

As Anderson tells it, there he was one fine Wednesday morning in July of 2013, feeding his three-year-old daughter breakfast and otherwise minding his own business, when a number of very stern-looking men sporting automatic weapons knocked rather insistently on his door.

It should be pointed out here that Cornealious Anderson never committed any acts of violence.  To be sure, he threatened to when he held up a Burger King restaurant with a BB gun in August of 1999, but the assistant manager there wisely decided to hand over the cash without a struggle and no-one was hurt.  In any case, over the 13 years that ensued, it appears that Anderson has clearly demonstrated that he has mended his ways and has become a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen.  As such, he and his lawyer, Patrick Megaro, argue that incarceration at this point serves no purpose.  Unfortunately, the American Statute of Limitations wasn't quite designed to handle this particular situation.

Asked why he didn't turn himself in, Anderson explains that he just figured that the law didn't care about him any more.  Besides, I have to wonder what, exactly, the law expects a man in this situation to do.  Can you imagine the phone call?  "Hello, Missouri Department of Corrections?  Yeah, my name is Cornealious Anderson.  I was convicted of armed robbery about a month ago and someone was supposed to tell me where to report for jail, but I... what?  Sure, I'll hold..."

The Missouri Attorney General argues that the state is justified in requiring Anderson to serve his full sentence after all this time, and I have no doubt that there are those who would agree.  He committed a crime, he was duly convicted and he has not yet paid the penalty.  But here we have to ask ourselves what is the purpose of prison?  Is it to reform or to punish, or is it both?  If the purpose of prison is to reform, then incarceration is completely unnecessary in this case.  The former criminal has clearly been reformed.  In fact, it might be argued that locking the man up now, taking him from his family and his job and throwing him in amongst a community of hardened criminals only creates the risk of turning him back into a criminal.

If, on the other hand, the purpose of prison is to punish, then I suppose it can be argued that Anderson has not been duly punished for his crime.  I'm not sure exactly what purpose punishing him serves at this point.  Perhaps someone should find the assistant manager of that Burger King that Anderson held up and ask him what he thinks should be done.

Chinese Air Force: The New Top Gun

There has been increased speculation since the turn of the century that China is fast closing the gap between itself and the United States and may be emerging as the world's next great super power. The Chinese have their own space program, their military power is growing in leaps and bounds, and their economy is growing, even as America's economy falters. In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently referred to China as "America's Banker".

So it would be understandable if a recent Chinese state-sponsored video depicting China's state of the art J-10 fighter obliterating some hapless enemy aircraft caused concern at the Pentagon. That is, it would be, if the video hadn't been ripped off from a Hollywood movie.

For all its political and economic clout, China has apparently not yet learned that you never, ever try to put one over on internet users. Believe me, this blogger has long since learned his lesson about the folly of trying to fool the online community! It wasn't long before several sharp-eyed web surfers, bloggers and Comic Book Guy type geeks noticed a suspicious similarity between the fireball resulting from the J-10's fearsome missile and a fireball from the Hollywood movie, "Top Gun". In fact, the two appear to be identical.

Needless to say, the incident has left China a bit red-faced. (Get it? Red! China! Red China! I made a funny!) But, you know, they may just be on to something here. Perhaps other governments, even the United States, could make themselves seem more intimidating by passing off Hollywood footage as their latest military arsenal. Here are some modest examples for your consideration:

To begin with, Russia could follow suit with footage of their own next-gen fighter jet:

As an added bonus, the pilots all look like Clint Eastwood. Who wouldn't be intimidated by that?

The U.S. might unveil its latest "Star Wars" anti-missile defence satellite:

After that, they won't need their bureaucracy any longer. Fear will keep the local countries in line. Fear of this killer satellite!

The Afghan troops might show off their latest all-terrain troop transport:

Heck, if it can withstand a nuclear holocaust, it can certainly withstand the occasional IED.

How about the latest military attack helicopter?

I understand it's equipped with a forward-mounted, twenty-millimeter electric cannon. Its six barrels are capable of firing four thousand rounds of ammunition per minute. And that, gentlemen, is one hell of a shit-storm in anybody's language!

Or they might claim that they're taking soldiers out of harm's way entirely and replacing them with new robotic soldiers:

Or strike fear into the enemy by threatening to use their latest heavy artillery guns:

This idea needn't be limited to the military. Police forces might demonstrate their newest tactical armored vehicle:

You get the idea. The list could go on and on. Why squander military and/or law enforcement budgets when Hollywood has already spent the money for you? It's faster, cheaper, and will probably get more peoples' attention in the long run.

Those Chinese, they're not so dumb!

U.S. Customs Confiscates Bird's Egg

I'm surprised that not one newspaper thought of that headline. I'm referring, of course, to the recent confrontation between the U.S. Customs service and Canadian Lind Bird, after a random search of her car, as she attempted to cross the border into the United States, uncovered dangerous contraband.

Was it weapons? No.

A bio hazard? No.

Terrorist propaganda? No.

The Yusuf Islam record collection? No.

It was (insert strident orchestral chords here) a Kinder Surprise Egg.

For those who don't know (and who haven't yet clicked on the above link), Kinder Surprise Eggs are chocolate eggs which contain a two-piece plastic container that opens to reveal a tiny toy. A television ad produced by the treat's Italian manufacturer, Ferrero, sums it up nicely. Kinder Surprise Eggs combine three of a child's favorite things; candy (chocolate), a surprise and a toy. Some of the toys are quite imaginative and many require assembly. I've often been fascinated by some of the engaging novelty items that Ferrero has managed to cram into their diminutive treats. In fact, they've become collectors' items in their own right.


What fascinates me most about the chocolate eggs is that their outer shell is regular, brown milk chocolate, but the inside of the candy shell, once you crack it open, is white chocolate. How do they do that? It's the grandest mystery since Cadbury's Caramilk bar!

Unfortunately, the U.S. Customs service does not share my admiration of Ferrero's creativity. They seized the candy as illegal contraband, and advised its would-be "smuggler" that she could have been fined up to $300 for trying to take it across the border. Apparently, Kinder Surprise Eggs have been banned in the U.S. because they've been deemed to present a choking hazard to small children.


Now, let me begin by acknowledging my agreement that the tiny toys that come out of these chocolate eggs can, indeed, pose a choking hazard to small children. So can lots of other things. Gum balls, pens, coins, flash memory sticks, paper clips, bottle caps, key fobs, laser pointers, nail clippers... I could go on, but you get the idea. Is U.S. Customs going to start fining people hundreds of dollars for taking any of the above across the border?


Okay, so let's grant that Kinder Surprise Eggs are specifically targeted toward children whereas most of those other items are not and, as such, they may have a higher probability of winding up in the hands (or mouth) of an unsuspecting youngster. But nobody said that Bird had any plans to give the offending treat to a minor. Maybe she was planning to eat it herself. Some grown-ups like them too you know. (I know I do!) In any case, she was clearly unaware that the seemingly harmless eggs were banned in the States and therefore had no knowledge or intent of any wrong-doing. Given that, a $300 fine seems just a bit of an overreaction.


Seems the U.S. Customs service is pretty serious about keeping these malevolent threats out of the U.S. of A. though. This isn't the first time they've stopped one at the border. Officials boast that they've seized over 25,000 of the treats in over 2,000 separate seizures. Well anyway, now we know what they're so busy doing while boxcutter-wielding maniacs stroll unimpeded across their borders.


In a fine display of bureaucratic flare, the United States government has since sent Bird a seven-page letter formally asking her permission to destroy the seized Kinder Surprise Egg. Now, I admit that I have a predilection toward verbosity, but even I would be hard-pressed to fill seven pages asking for permission to destroy a chocolate egg. Maybe they listed all of the possible means of destruction that they would not use; you know, just to reassure the egg's former owner that its final destruction would be humane, painless and quick.


I wonder what the black market price for Kinder Surprise Eggs is in the U.S.? It probably dwarfs even that of other Canadian confections that you can't get south of the border, such as Crispy Crunch, Coffee Crisp and Smarties (which, incidentally, might also present a choking hazard).

Bean Counters

"The conditions of financing and distribution that made the Warner shorts possible no longer exist, so we will probably never see their like again." - John Canemaker

When John Canemaker made this comment in the 1975 documentary "The Boys From Termite Terrace" he was, of course, referring to the Warner Brothers short cartoons that so many of us grew up with; Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Yosemite Sam, Tweety and Sylvester, Wile E. Coyote, the Road Runner and a host of others.

Let's think about that for a moment. What Canemaker was, in fact, saying is that, today, these cartoons, which millions around the world have come to know and love and which, arguably, have played a significant role in moulding our culture, could not exist. If it were up to us, they would never have been created.

Why? Because they would be deemed to be unprofitable. They take too much time and care to create; therefore they cost too much and offer too little a return on investment. Instead, we get pale imitations of these classics; Fairly Odd Parents, Prank Patrol, Spongebob Squarepants,the Simpsons and a host of anime shows in which what passes for animated speech involves flipping back and forth between just two mouth positions; open and closed.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that these modern animated shows are bad in and of themselves. I'm a big fan of the Simpsons. I own the first 11 seasons on DVD. But the quality of the artistry and animation simply cannot compare to that of the old Warner Brothers shorts.

To demonstrate my point, a friend of mine and I once watched one of the old Warner Brothers short cartoons in its entirety with the sound turned off. It was just as funny and entertaining as it was with sound. The subtlety of the characters' facial expressions, their gestures and their posture rendered the soundtrack almost unnecessary.

Today, the Simpsons aren't even hand drawn in America anymore but farmed out to Korea where the animation is computer rendered. Why? Because it's cheaper to do it that way. The difference in the finished product is noticeable. Watch an episode of the Simpsons without sound, and the experience becomes much degraded; almost pointless. That's the difference.

It seems to me that our society has evolved, or perhaps devolved, to the point where financial profit increasingly appears to be the only motivator for any enterprise. The "bean counters" run the show. I understand that everyone needs to make a living and that money-losing ventures are doomed to failure, but we seem to have forgotten that not everything is about the bottom line. Some things are worth doing for the sake of doing them. What about beautifying the world? What about broadening our horizons, thereby increasing our knowledge and wisdom? What about simple experimentation; trying things just to see what happens?

In George Minter's famous motion picture adaptation of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol", he added a scene that was never in the original novel, in which one Mr. Jorkin offers to buy Fezziwig's failing business.

"It's not just for money alone that one spends a lifetime building up a business, Mr. Jorkin" explains Fezziwig.

"Well if it isn't, I'd like you to tell him what you do spend a lifetime building up a business for," counters Jorkin, with an amused chuckle.

"It's to preserve a way of life that one knew and loved," explains Fezziwig. "No, I can't see my way to selling out to the new vested interest, Mr. Jorkin. I have to be loyal to the old ways, and die out with them if needs must."

And indeed he does. Scrooge, meanwhile, jumps ship and leaves Fezziwig for a position with Jorkin's company before Fezziwig's business fails. This ultimately proves a prudent career move and Scrooge becomes both successful and wealthy, but he loses his soul in the process.

I once read that many of today's corporate steering committees and boards of directors will not approve a research and development project unless the results are known in advance. How ridiculous! If we already knew what the results will be, why would we need to do any research? Conversely, if the "bean counters" never approved any project whose ultimate result was unknown at the start, no projects would ever be started.

Jame's Burke's excellent mini-series, "Connections", demonstrates several examples of inventions and discoveries that changed the world as we know it, which were discovered by accident, or by people researching something entirely different. Otto von Guericke rubbed a sulphur ball in an attempt to create a magnetic attraction. Instead, he caused a spark, which ultimately led to the understanding and harnessing of electricity. Archibald Cochrane, the 9th Earl of Dundonald, cooked coal in a kettle in order to create coal tar for coating the bottom of marine vessels. When the vapor caused by his experimentation ignited one day, causing an explosion, it alerted others to the existence of combustible gases, which could be harnessed for their heat and energy. Would today's "bean counters" have funded von Guericke or Cochrane?

It was largely an obsession with cost overruns that killed Canada's Avro Arrow program in the 1950's. The Arrow was the most advanced jet interceptor of its time. The program inspired advances in aerodynamics, metallurgy, computer processing and engine power which enabled achievements that had never before been accomplished and that many deemed impossible at the time. Of course such a program is going to be expensive!

When the program was canceled, Canada lost not only an aircraft and thousands of Avro employee jobs, but most of its best aeronautical and engineering minds, which all went to the United States to be scooped up by NASA, Rockwell, McDonnell-Douglas and other U.S. aerospace companies, and its status as an aeronautical and scientific innovator on the world stage. By canceling the Arrow program, Canada helped to entrench its own stereotypical image as America's poor cousin; a perception which continues even today.

Concern about costs is also the reason that the Apollo program was canceled after Apollo 17, and why mankind has since managed to venture no further into space than Earth orbit. As our population grows, warming the planet and making it harder and harder for the Earth to sustain us, mankind's only hope for long-term survival may ultimately be the colonization of other worlds, but it isn't happening because the "bean counters" don't think that long term. They're only concerned about next quarter's results.

Certainly both the Avro Arrow and the Apollo programs were hugely expensive and probably financially unprofitable, but the people involved didn't get into these projects solely to make money. There was a larger purpose which got lost among the clatter of adding machines.

If people had thought the way they do today in the past, Columbus would never have discovered the new world and the Wright brothers would never have created a heavier-than-air vehicle that flew. These were high-risk ventures with no guarantee of any sort of return. The motivation of those undertaking them was their boundless curiosity, their need to explore and discover, their desire to improve peoples' lives and their world as well as the hope of financial rewards.

For those who insist on making it all about dollars and cents, I point out that, sometimes, reluctance to risk investing in the unknown can result in the loss of huge potential revenues. The famous postor at left shows the staff of a very young Microsoft corporation, circa 1978 and asks "Would you have invested in this company?" Well, "bean counters", let's see a show of hands. How many of you would have said "Sure! They look like they know what they're doing. Give them some money."

Another disturbing trend is that more and more politicians are encouraging the study of mathematics and the sciences in schools, while downplaying the importance of art and literature. After all, nobody hires a lot of writers, painters and poets, right? Such skills are not considered useful or productive. And yet, our artisans teach us lateral thinking, imagination and conceptualization. This type of thinking is important. Facts aren't usually the catalyst for invention and discovery. Imagination and creative thinking is. It's been said that you can't win at poker just by applying the mathematics of probability.

Accountants and bookkeepers have their place but, in my opinion, they should not be the ones making the decisions that steer the course of enterprise and innovation. Let the "bean counters" balance the ledgers and let those with an entrepreneurial spirit, leadership and, above all, imagination, take the helm. Wouldn't it be wonderful if, in the not-too-distant future, our children could turn on the television to watch something brand new that's as creative and timeless as Bugs Bunny?

Balsillie vs. Bettman

Time for me to sound off with my thoughts on this whole kerfuffle regarding Jim Balsillie's bid to purchase the bankrupt Phoenix Coyotes and bring them to Canada. I'll start right out by admitting that I'm Canadian, and I live in Balsillie's neck of the woods, so my opinion will obviously be biased in his favour (note the Canadian spelling of "favoUr", eh?) I'll also state, for the record, that I'm not heavily into professional sports of any kind, hockey being the only one in which I have even a mild interest. Even so, I hardly ever watch the games and I only follow the season by way of news reports and hearsay. As a sports fan (or non-fan), I really couldn't care less what happens to the Coyotes. As a Canadian, I care a great deal.

Now that that's out of the way, I can state, with a clear conscience, my opinion that Gary Bettman is a pompous, manipulative hosehead with a greatly over-exaggerated sense of self-importance.

Why in the name of Gordie Howe would the NHL Commissioner object to saving a bankrupt franchise by moving it from a place where no market exists for it (which is why the team is now bankrupt ... Duh!) to a place where there is a strong, thriving market for it? Because the strong, thriving market is in Canada, that's why. Bettman strikes me as just another arrogant Yank who can't stand the idea of America's northern neighbour doing anything better than the good old U.S. of A.

Bettman's main argument against Balsillie's acquisition of the team is that he (Balsillie) is trying to circumvent the NHL's rules in moving the Coyotes to Canada. Well, when the rules are designed to put you at a disadvantage, you sometimes have no alternative but to skirt them, if not break them outright. Seems odd that neither Bettman himself nor his vaunted rules had any objection to moving the Quebec Nordique to Colorado back in '95. Ah, but that involved moving a Canadian franchise to the U.S., and that changes the whole picture, doesn't it?

Bettman cited a concern that the NHL's Board of Governors might not approve Balsillie as a suitable franchise owner. "I don't know whether or not he could get approved," Bettman said. "That's, as I said, something I don't get a vote on. If in fact it becomes an issue for board consideration, the board of governors of the league will make that decision."

Sounds like passing the puck ... er, I mean, the buck ... to me. I'm not the obstacle here. It's that darned Board of Governors. Well, has anybody asked them? And who's on the Board of Governors, anyway? More U.S. fat cats? Hardly sounds either fair or objective to me.

It seems to me that hockey has become more about money and politics than about the game, which probably explains why people like myself, who admire the game, can't be bothered the follow the professional league.

I'm struck by the curious similarities between the Balsillie/Bettman feud and the movie, Bon Cop Bad Cop. For those not familiar with the movie, it's about a pair of detectives; Martin Ward, from Ontario, and David Bouchard, from Quebec, who become reluctant partners when they are assigned to investigate the murder of a hockey tycoon who had been instrumental in moving a Canadian team to the United States. More murders of hockey officials ensue and it soon becomes clear that the detectives are on the trail of a serial killer bent on punishing league officials guilty of moving Canadian hockey teams south of the border.

The killer's ultimate target turns out to be the league commissioner himself, one "Harry Buttman", who is on the verge of committing the ultimate sin, moving the Montreal team to the States. Although he is a target, Buttman is portrayed in the movie as arrogant, deceptive and altogether unlikeable. I found it particularly amusing that Buttman is played by Richard Howland, a midget, which I interpret as the director portraying the Hockey Commissioner as, quite literally, a small man. Ward and Bouchard end up tying him up, stuffing him into a body bag and locking him in the trunk of a car, "for his own protection", but can't help enjoying the activity. Maybe that's the kind of therapy that Mr. Bettman needs.

Before I get back on topic, I'll digress just a little further by highly recommending Bon Cop Bad Cop to those who haven't yet seen it. It's one of the most enjoyable Canadian made movies I've ever seen. It captures, better than any other movie I've seen, Canada's Anglophone/Francophone split personality, and the ever-present tension between the two cultures. It's a riveting drama liberally imbued with dashes of uniquely Canadian humour. It should be required viewing for any Americans who still picture Canadians as beer-swilling, French-speaking lumberjacks whose cops all ride around on horseback. (Well, okay, everybody in this movie happens to be fluent in French, including the English-speaking detective from Ontario, so I guess the movie doesn't do much to dispel that particular Canadian stereotype).

Getting back to reality, Jim Balsillie argues that his bid to acquire the Coyotes is about "The passion that Canadians feel for the game of hockey." Quite right. Hockey is Canada's game, much moreso than America's. Everybody knows that. It's a part of the Canadian identity. America took the Nordique from us and they took Gretzky. This is us, taking our national identity back. Don't stand in our way, Bettman. We may not stuff you in any car trunks, Canadians are much too polite for that, but some of us would be more than happy to come down there and demonstrate a proper "jersey pull" for you.

Goldstein Unmasked

Have you heard? They've isolated the cause of the current financial crisis; the biggest economic meltdown since the nineteen thirties. All this time, I'd assumed that it was a combination of several factors; overspeculation by greedy investors, unsustainable debt loads accrued by imprudent borrowers, large-scale investment in complex, high-risk financial instruments, lack of regulation by apathetic governments. It seems I was wrong. It wasn't any of those things. No, according to a Wired magazine article, it was this guy. Let the world tremble at the name of DAVID X. LI (hereafter to be known as "Doctor X").

Oh, don't let his mild-mannered looks fool you! Behind those spectacles lurks a diabolical fiend, bent on bringing the world economy to its knees! Let the amateurs waste their time with their ineffectual terrorist tactics, their trade embargoes, their commodity control, their protectionist economic policies. This guy wields a weapon capable of causing true world anarchy. The GAUSSIAN COPULA FUNCTION!!! (Insert strident orchestral chord here).

We know now that, even before the dawning of the new millennium, this megalomaniacal mastermind laboured in the dark recesses of the University of Waterloo, perfecting the statistical equivalent of the atomic bomb. In the year 2000, his fiendish schemes reached their fruition as he released his evil formula upon a naive world, cleverly disguised as a scholarly paper, in which he urged gullible investors to apply his insidious formula to credit risks, encompassing everything from bonds to mortgages. The unsuspecting fools took the bait, and set in motion an irreversible chain of destruction. By the fall of 2008, American banks and insurance firms began to collapse, taking with them the rest of the world economy. Not since Flexible coding of temporal information by pigeons: Event durations as remember and forget cues for temporal samples (allegedly the inspiration behind Hitchcock's "The Birds") has a scholarly work so threatened the very fabric of our modern society!

I'm certain that "Doctor X" is the only one who knows how to stop this catastrophic formula, and has probably already issued a communiqué to the chief of the United Nations, promising to call it off only after being proclaimed Supreme Emporer Of The World. We puny mortals have no choice but to acquiesce or perish.

In George Orwell's "1984", the Party invented a faceless scapegoat, known only as "Goldstein". Every evil, every misfortune, every form of subversion and perversion was ultimately blamed on him. He was a convenient target for the peoples' anger and frustration; one that conveniently directed attention and scrutiny away from the Party. We already have our modern equivalents for newspeak (political correctness or misleading words) and doublethink (Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass-destruction and multi-millions in bonuses being paid to the same incompetents who visited disaster on Wall Street). We certainly have our Big Brother (the U.S. government tapping its citizens' telephones without cause, mass media and credit reporting agencies). Now, it seems, we have our Goldstein too.

Saint Obama?

I like what I've seen of President Barack Obama so far but ... wow! According to this picture, there may be more to the man than anyone has guessed! I have to give credit where it's due; Scott Adams' blog pointed me at this particular pic.

I've already expressed admiration for the man in general (Barack Obama, not Scott Adams, although I do hold Adams in fairly high regard as well), and particularly for his criticism of the greedy Wall Street fat cats for lining their pockets with bonuses while the rest of us pay the price for their excesses. Since then, President Obama has put the proverbial kibosh on those same bonuses, freezing Wall Street salaries until such time as the economy turns around or, as he himself put it, until the taxpayers have been repaid. Three Cheers!

As commendable as these things are, this past week I came across another story which impressed me more than anything else I've heard or read thus far and, ironically, it has to do with Obama's first mistake since being elected President. He has gone to great lengths to surround himself with the best and brightest minds that he can find. Unfortunately, some of those whom he selected had questionable pasts and conflicts of interest that disqualified them from their posts.

Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for the post of Health and Human Services Secretary had failed to report certain income for consulting work and personal use of a car and driver on his tax returns between 2005 and 2007. He had also incorrectly deducted charitable contributions which were not eligible.

Nancy Killefer was nominated for the post of Chief Performance Officer, but also had to step aside because the DC government had filed a tax lien on her home in 2005 for failing to pay unemployment tax for her household servants.

Some might wonder what's the big deal. Both Daschle and Killefer had belatedly made good on their taxes, and goodness knows we've seen politicians and civil servants forgiven transgressions seemingly much more grievous than these. However, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service is notoriously harsh with ordinary citizens who make even honest mistakes on their tax returns, and President Obama did not want to create the perception of a double-standard. "Ultimately," he said, "it's important for this administration to send a message that there aren't two sets of rules -- you know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes."

Not content to simply correct these errors, President Obama then did an amazing thing. He invited representatives of several news networks into the oval office, one by one, for brief interviews in which he took full responsibility for the debacle, making comments like "I screwed up" and "I'm frustrated with myself, with our team". He then pledged to right the situation and to ensure that nothing like this happens again. "I'm here on television saying I screwed up, and that's part of the era of responsibility. It's not never making mistakes; it's owning up to them and trying to make sure you never repeat them and that's what we intend to do."

How refreshing is that? A politician with the integrity to admit that he's not perfect and to accept responsibility for his mistakes. It may not seem like that much. It may seem no more than the American people have a right to expect from their leader. Sadly, it's an exceedingly rare thing nowadays, not only in the United States but around the world. Here's hoping that other world leaders sit up, take notice, and follow President Obama's example.

Back At The Trough Already?!?

Have you heard? The Wizards of Wall Street, that same bunch that mismanaged the wealth of the American nation to such an extent that they drove the country to the brink of a second depression (hey, somebody had to finally say it!) and dragged most of the rest of the world with it in the process, the same bunch that had to come begging to the U.S. taxpayer for over $700 billion in survival money, have just given themselves huge bonuses. Yes, that's right, the New York State Comptroller has reported that Wall Street brokers collected a total of about $US 8.5 billion in bonuses for 2008, and that's not counting stock options.

When asked to explain themselves, these self-entitled stuffed shirts had the nerve to sulk about the fact that this year's bonuses were, in fact, down 44% from what they received in 2007. It apparently hasn't occurred to them that this just underscores how obscenely overpaid they've been for the past several years.

What I can't figure out is exactly what these bonuses are for. Do these brokers get a percentage of the money that they lose? Or has the bar just been set really, really low? ("Well, Jenkins, your goal was not to lose more than $50 billion last year. I see that you only lost us $20 billion. Nice work, my boy!") It seems gross incompetence is richly rewarded these days.

New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said that it's unclear whether any taxpayer money was used in paying these exorbitant bonuses. Well, it's pretty clear to me, Mr. DiNapoli. Of course taxpayer money was used! The purpose of the $700 billion bailout was to keep the banks and insurance companies for which these fat cats worked (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense) afloat. That means that, without that money, there would have been no financial organizations from which to collect these bonuses, and that money came directly from the American taxpayer. Wall Street has, in fact, taken the rescue money and stuffed it into its pockets.

Then there's this blog called "Dating A Banker Anonymous", in which some of the wives of these pompous pampered parasites cry about the many sacrifices they've had to make since their husbands flushed the economy down the crapper http://dabagirls.wordpress.com/. I do grant that this blog may, in fact, be the most delicious example of poker-faced sarcasm it has ever been my pleasure to read. I certainly hope it is. If these women are, in fact, serious, they make the Desperate Housewives look like June Cleaver.

Most galling of all is that some of the pigs at the financial trough apparently feel slighted by their reduced earnings this year. A poll of 900 financial industry employees reported that 46 percent of the respondents felt that they deserved more. What they deserve, in fact, is to be fired, the lot of them, immediately and without further compensation. They should be glad that nobody's making them personally financially responsible for the losses that they incurred.

To his credit, President Obama was reportedly as outraged as I at this news, calling it "shameful", and "the height of irresponsibility". Hopefully, what we are witnessing here is merely the washing away of the last remnants of the scum that has choked the life out of America these past many years.

Support Our Troops

I get mixed feelings whenever I see a "Support Our Troops" ribbon on the back of a car or on the window of someone's house. What does that mean, exactly? Does it mean that I'm expected to condone Canada's presence in Afghanistan or, if I happen to be American, the United States' presence in Iraq?

I think that most people now understand that the Iraq war is a sham. America's reasons for invading a country which posed no threat to the United States have been shown to be invalid. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Iraq was not harboring Osama Bin Laden and had nothing to do with the September, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.

And why are Canadian troops in Afghanistan? They went there at the request of the Americans, after the 9/11 attack, presumably to flush out Osama Bin Laden, who was presumed to be hiding somewhere in the Afghani hills, and perhaps to disrupt Al-Qaeda's operations. But, again, Bin Laden was never found, and Al-Qaeda still remains active.

Meanwhile, each week more Canadian and American families bury their young soldiers. At the time of this writing, 97 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan since the start of the conflict. In total, over 1,000 coalition soldiers have lost their lives there. Over 4,500 military personnel have died in Iraq, and almost 4,200 of those were U.S. troops, and for what? What did they die for? What have we accomplished? What do we expect to accomplish before it's over?

I think we need to draw a distinction between supporting our troops, and supporting our governments' military agendas. I support our troops. I have the deepest respect and admiration for every Canadian and American soldier that goes to Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else. These are volunteers, not inductees. They have chosen, for their own reasons, to support their countries in these theatres. They are away from their families and friends and from the comforts and familiarities of home for extended periods, and many have given their lives to the cause. My problem is that I still don't fully understand what that cause is, or whether it's valid. I suspect I'm not alone.

Supporting our troops does not necessarily mean blindly supporting our governments' military agendas. For some, it means getting clarity about why they are being asked to make the sacrifices that they have been asked to make, and to ensure that the reasons justify those sacrifices. Supporting our troops means challenging those who give those troops their marching orders, in order to ensure that not one soldier dies in vain.

Hail To The Chief!

America has elected her first black president. I intentionally avoid the politically-correct "African-American". Barack Obama is black and should be proud to be so. As historic an event as this is, Obama's victory is not a racial victory. I believe that Obama is the right man for the job, and I would still feel this way were he white, hispanic or Asian.

At the same time, I don't envy Obama. He has inherited a pointless, futile, unwinnable war, a broken economy and a nation much diminished in the eyes of the world. The job of leader of the world's biggest industrial nation is not necessarily one to be coveted at this particular point in history.

Aside from that, it would be naive not to express some concern for the man's personal security. While the United States has obviously come a long way from its racially unjust past, it is also still home to an extremist element whose fear and loathing of those different from themselves has, at times, manifested itself in the form of cruel and senseless acts of violence. This admittedly small minority nevertheless remains a danger and I, for one, do not envy those in the employ of the Secret Service in the years to come.

That having been said, I count myself among those who see this decision as a sign of hope, and a signal of America's resolve to correct the mistakes of her past. I believe that president-elect Barack Obama is more likely than anyone else to prove himself capable of turning America around and restoring to her the status of the Shining Example to be admired and emulated by the other nations of the world.

Congratulations, America. You've made the right choice.

Der Lipizzaner

Last weekend, the world-famous Lipizzaner Stallions came to my town, and I decided that I had to see them because, after all, they're a part of my Austrian heritage. This is the same reasoning which dictated that I had to see Gordon Lightfoot perform live, as he's a part of my Canadian heritage. That's just how I am. If I were of Russian descent, I would be sure to see the Moscow Ballet before I died. If I had any Italian blood coursing through my veins, I would make a point of seeing Pagliacci. And, if I were American born, I wouldn't have the foggiest idea what any of the above are, so I'd just stay in and watch Surreal Life re-runs.

For those who don't know, the Lipizzaner are a breed of beautiful, white stallion descended from the fabled Spanish Andalusian line. They're famous for being particularly graceful and agile in their movements. They can trot to the tempos of Strauss and Mozart better than the Von Trapps at a square dance competition.

"But if the horses are Spanish," you may wonder, "what makes them such an integral part of my Austrian heritage?" Well, it seems that, round about 1562, the Archduke Maximilian, who later became Emporer of Austria (ah ha!) started breeding these horses. Later on, another Archduke, Karl¹, established a royal stud farm in Lipizza, located in the hills of Karst, near Trieste. Hence, the breed's modern moniker.

The other reason I decided that I should see the Lipizzaner is because I suffer from a deplorable dearth of culture in my life. Until I saw the Lipizzaner perform, I thought that "dressage" was something that you found at a salad bar.

Although horses are not among my primary interests, I could not help but be impressed at the grace and agility of these magnificent creatures. I watched in rapt amazement as one of the handsome stallions performed a flawless Piaffe manoeuver whilst simultaneously dropping a three-pound mound of steaming horse dung in the brilliant glare of the spotlights for all to admire. In fact, I began to wonder whether the horses weren't getting the wrong idea, thinking that the applause was for their impressive discharge rather than the movements being performed. If we could read their equine thoughts, we might hear something like "Hey, the humans really seemed to like that last one! Heck, that's nothing! Wait until they see this next load I've got brewing!"

Which reminds me, the unsung stars of the Lipizzaner performance, in my opinion, are the black-garbed groomsmen who run about in the dark shadows between the spotlights, shovel in hand, scooping up the "souvenirs" left by the performing stars as inconspicuously as possible, whilst also managing to stay out of the paths of the horses and riders. Believe you me, if not for these intrepid souls, the atmosphere in the auditorium would have become pretty "ripe" by the end of the show, if you get my drift!

All kidding aside, though, the show was truly impressive and I highly recommend it to anyone with even a passing interest in horses.

1. We Austrians used to have a thing for Archdukes right up until Ferdinand, after which we decided that they were more trouble than they were worth.