Lost Continent Words

Guilty Pleasure: Canada

OK, fine, despite the abuse, I'll admit it. I love Canada.

They've been right there across the river my whole life. I've been used to growing up seeing another country when I walk around, going there for short day trips, being harassed by their Coast Guard while boating. They brought to Michigan its love of Hockey and its traditions, and I still watch the games on CBC (which I can easily pick up from broadcast in Windsor) whenever I can. And I'm sorry that the lure of American-style capitalism has ruined the sport, is destroying its Canadian roots, and trying to turn it into Soccer on ice. I'm sorry that the league is trying to grow itself so obscenely that Calgary and Ottawa are having trouble supporting teams financially while new arenas appear in Phoenix and Dallas and Tampa Bay.

Molson Canadian is superior to every American macrobrew, and stands fine on its own without qualification. Malt Vinegar is very good in fact on French Fries, which rightfully should be sold out of a truck in a parking lot served in a paper cone. Television news really can deal with genuine issues rather than an endless parade of misery, and it is possible for a population to own guns and not shoot each other constantly with them. And for all its faults, its nice to see that they believe that the health of its citizens is worth the action of the government.

Sure, the Quebecois are obnoxious. But then, we in the States have Texas, and you wouldn't want the world to judge you based on Texans, would you?* (Too late, of course, for large portions of the world, our President has encouraged this.) And yes, they do get a bit snippy on political issues at times, but can you really blame them? I mean, they're a fairly small country in population, political and military power, and wealth, next to the biggest in most of those categories (some catching up to do on population, but then we use more resources for that population than our counterparts do). And we're talking about pre-emptively invading countries. Wouldn't you be nervous?

Mostly, though, tonight I'm in love with Canada because I now get 4 Canadian broadcast channels, since I still refuse to pay for cable. And CBC and TVO are both good. (CBC is kind of the all around Canadian channel for Hockey night in Canada and the news and the Olympics, TVO (the O is for Ontario I think) is a bit more of an egghead channel like PBS or CSPAN with interviews and lectures and such). But the new channel that never came in before (CTV) plays "The Daily Show" every night at midnight, which is one of the only things I really missed about not having cable. For the most part Comedy Central was always a lot of shows that I would waste time watching and then wondering why, but the Daily Show always seemed worth it. I'll have to keep my eye on it, maybe I'll get incredibly lucky and they'll play Kids in the Hall reruns too.

So thank you Canada, for being so much better than average but refusing to brag about it. For producing really funny comedians and actors and then letting them leave to go to America where they can immediately start to suck on shows like Saturday Night Live. For sending me CBC in English and French (on channel 54) so I can always see Habs games (even if I have no idea what they're saying). For doughnuts. For Don Cherry. For still having the Mounties in their cute little uniforms. For having a neat looking flag. For having a 19-year old drinking age, which allowed me to discover that going to the bar really isn't all that great at an early age. For starting to enact sane drug-control policies that might someday help our own country deserve to call itself the land of the free. O Canada,The True North Strong and Free, I salute you, eh.

*Of course, I'm exaggerating. I have met 3 or 4 Texans that I liked. Its just that I'm worried that they may be the *only* ones.

parliamentary politics

No really, parliamentary politics. I just was reflecting today what a cute system of government it is. I'm not convinced that it's superior to the US's Republican model, but it is interesting.

I've always been impressed by the "Coalition-building" aspect of Parliamentary governments, which is really what got me thinking. I only get about 10 stations on TV because I only use a TV-mounted broadcast antenna. Being here in Detroit, 4 of those stations are Canadian, and so election coverage was the only thing I got to watch on those channels. In the recent election it was largely believed that the Liberal Party was in trouble, and bilingual issues were a big part of the campaign differences between the Liberals and Conservatives. So now the results have come in and the Liberals are still the largest represented, but are no longer a majority party, only a plurality. In many countries this would result in a coalition government.

There are only two other parties that could join a coalition, the New Democratic Party, which spent most of the election attacking the leader of the Liberals; and the Bloc Quebecois, a party representing Quebec sovereignty and independence. While it is visible enough in our own system, it is certainly true that parliamentary politics makes strange bedfellows.

It is unlikely that there will be a coalition government in Canada, however, as there is a tradition against it. It is more likely that what will result will be "minority government" which means that while the Liberals are still a minority, if they can get enough support in the House of Commons to elect their ministers then the government will proceed. However, the new minority government will have to proceed cautiously and constantly be compromising to satisfy other members in order to pass anything.

Of course, if the Liberals can't get Parliament to support them, then it will be back to the polls in a few months to try again. Perhaps a brand-new election will actually get people to vote. The voter-turnout trends in Canada have recently begun shadowing our own downward trends in the US. The official numbers put turnout at around 60%, which is a new all-time low in Canada. However, in an informal poll of 5 Canadians I work with I found voter turnout to be: 0%! That's pretty low. True, the sample size was low, but it seems like it means something. Also, turnout was only 43% in Nunavut, the Canadian Territory created in 1999 that I'll bet half of you have never heard of. (I didn't know it existed until last year.)

In any case, its kind of interesting to view some other countries messed up elections, especially coming from a position of total ignorance.

Iraq Sovereignty

I am cautiously hopeful that the change in sovereignty in Iraq will help to normalize the situation there. But it seems like a difficult road ahead. It seems to me that the best thing Allawi could do for himself politically is to find something to disagree with the US about, and soon.

Calling it sovereignty doesn't change the Iraqi public perception that he is a leader that exists as a puppet for the Americans. And the US government can't afford to get out at this point, it *has* to support Allawi unless he crosses the line into actual terror attacks or outright totalitarianism (and I'm not sure even that would be enough for us to leave or risk trying to put in somebody else). So in order to gain any credibility and mandate from Iraq, it is imperative that he demonstrate his independence. I'm quite curious to see how he will decide to do so. His decision on the matter will likely have a huge impact on how the handover goes, and whether we end up in a year with a Democratic Nationally Unified Iraq or a revolution similar to the one in Iran.

I'm certain the scariest part for the chessboard types in the State Department is that they will have limited control over which it will be. And if the result is a fervently Islamist State similar to Iran, the entire exercise in Iraq will be a failure on every front, from WMDs to Terror to Regional Stability. Right now, I don't see any clear indication that we are far closer to one than the other. And that is terrifying.

3 reasons Google kicks ass

OK, here are some "Power Google" tips, because I'm a geek and not too proud to admit it.

1) Try this search. Then this one.

2) Now this one. And this too.

3) Just for fun, type in "Miserable Failure" and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky" You may have seen this before, but it should be noted that it's most likely a manipulation from outside rather than a hack by Google. Not that they mind, probably. Here's an article discussing it.

Like any portal, Google offers lots of tools on the site, but I love the fact that those are available right from the search box, and have started using them all the time since I found them. Unfortunately the calculator wigs out after a while. It doesn't seem to deal with symbolic quantities very well. They need an operator like "define:" for the calc tool, so you could type in

"calc:Radius of earth in miles ^2 / (radius of earth in miles + 62)^2"

Hey, why are you looking at me like that? I warned you.

Freedom Festival

Just came down from watching the International Freedom Festival Fireworks on my roof. Just incredible.

I've watch a lot of fireworks displays and enjoy the hell out of them, but Detroit is a special case for me. For those who don't know, every year Detroit and Windsor (its sister city across the Detroit river) chip in together to throw one hell of a firework display as a co-comemoration of 4th of July and Canada Day (hence their ocurring on June 23rd). This display is a case study on the concept of "excessive". Of course, that's what fireworks are all about, so its fantastic. But most fireworks you get used to a sort of cadence or rhythm. Establish it strong, fade out, throw up a few big and pretty ones, hit hard again, back off, finale. Well, we don't buy that here. It starts by filling the sky with fireworks and doesn't let up, even a little, for 25 minutes.

With a display this constant and incredibly, how can you tell when the finale is coming? You know that guy that lives down the street from you, who comes home every night around 1AM? You know how you always know when he's coming home because of that damn stereo? When the finale started, you could no longer hear individual reports of shells being launched, just that same low level rumble (about 30 Hz I'd say) you hear from that guys stereo. It lasted for over a minute, and was about as loud as a gentle rain. I am six miles away from the launch site.

Just incredible, even from my roof looking over the tops of the trees. I had hoped to make the trip in my boat this year, which would have been beyond belief, but unfortunately it wasn't ready yet. Next year I'll make it, I can't imagine what it will be like being right there.

Update: Screw your rocket, I'll take the stairs

In case you haven't been through the comments, Andy posted a super-cool article about the increasing feasibility of a "space elevator". Gravity holds it down to earth on one end, and the rotation of the earth keeps it out on the other end*. The only problem was having an appropriate structure to balance those forces.

Well, that and the actually doing it part. Anyway, check it out.

*Geeky Physics Note below (BEWARE)

Note: Notice how much effort I went through to *not* use the word "centrifugal"? Physics geeks should note that the article got this wrong. While they didn't use the highly vexing phrase "Centrifugal Force", they nonetheless described "outward centripetal force", which is nonesense, considering centripetal is defined as inward (litereally, center-seeking). Here is a pretty good article discussing the distinction. What is really happening is that the rotation of earth is applying force both along the edge of the rotation (straight-line) and toward the center (centripetal straight line) which is what keeps it going in a roughly circular orbit instead of falling back to earth or shooting off. The cable balances these forces, keeping it rotating. From the reference of Earth this looks like its being pulled outward, but really, its just moving in a circle.

This is a highly disturbing misconception for physicists. Equally troubling is the common assertion of "zero-gravity" while in orbit. What is actually happening is zero-weight, due to the constant falling of orbital motion. For a body to feel weight, there has to be something pushing against the force of gravity. In the case of everyone reading this, that something is the surface of the Earth. But in orbit, there is nothing pushing back, the body is experiencing all of the acceleration of gravity as motion. So there is no weight felt. This is the same phenomenon noticed in a quick moving elevator.

In fact, at the height of the rocket launch on Monday (62 miles) the force of gravity was only 3% less** than at the surface. The reason you saw the M&Ms floating was weightlessness, not zero-gravity.

**Radius of Earth^2 / (Radius of Earth + 62 miles)^2 [Calculated with Google]

Beer Electoral Law

Several questions ocurred to me while watching the recent ad-war between Bud and Miller.

1) Why would a company want to align itself with an annoying smarmy politician type, probably the single least popular archetype possible?

2) Wow, doesn't Budweiser seem really pissed off?

3) Has any of this ever made someone want to drink that swill?

Fortunately, Slate comes to the rescue with an ad report card covering the whole thing.

Like Seth, I eagerly await to see if Miller can come up with a response. All this attention has approximately 0% chance of causing me to drink anything made by one of these companies.

(Disclosure: OK, I admit it, I actually like High Life. But I'll do without the rest of it. )

Return from Oblivion and Travel to it

And so I have returned from the black-hole dev-null of server limbo and have emerged on the other side alive and refreshed. Which is nice.

But the big news of the day (if you're me) is Bert Rutan and his pilot Mike Melvill successfully testing their X-Prize entry SpaceShipOne. After detaching from White Knight, a first stage carrier plane, the smaller SpaceShipOne (a little bigger than an Oldsmobile) blasted off up to 62 miles from Earth, which put it right at the border where "space" is considered to begin.

Certainly a flight to the edge of Earth's atmosphere has been done hundreds of times by now, right? So why is this news? It is new and news, because as a entry for the X-prize, SpaceShipOne is the first privately-funded spacecraft to accomplish such a task.

I first mentioned the X-prize in this space as an aside in this article, but I'd like to spend a little more time on it now. It was created in 1995 by Dr. Peter Diamandis, an aeospace researcher, in the hopes of inspiring the same rush of entrepreneurial fervor that helped launch the commercial aviation industry with the prizes sponsored in the 30s and 40s (and won by Lindbergh). Since that time it has grown in size and public interest, to a total of 27 teams competing for the now $10 Million prize. Much of the speculation and smart money so far has been on Bert Rutan's team "Scaled Composites" to win the prize. The design is really fascinating in the way it uses really new concepts in aviation to accomplish the task.

How do you win the $10M? You have to pilot a spacecraft with three passengers (pilot included) up to a height of 62 miles and return safely. Then, to prove it is viable as a reuseable solution, you have to do it again two weeks later. The test flight today was the first step toward that goal, with only the pilot aboard. Scaled hasn't confirmed when they will gear up for the actual run at the prize, but expect it to be coming up in the next few months.

Notes:
CNN Article on the Flight

NPR All Things Considered feature

Scaled Composite Team Page on X-Prize site

The list of X-Prize teams in competition

Ronald Reagan

In all the current media onslaught, I suppose I should say something about Ronald Reagan.

Something.

I've never been comfortable with Ronald Reagan or his role in history. I have a sizable respect for any person who has served as President of the United States, as I think it's got to be about the toughest job anyone can dream up. And certainly there have been more useless Presidents in history, whereas Reagan was a responsible for a great many changes, and accomplished quite a number of things.

But accomplished is not harmless, and the question of whether the accomplishments and changes have made the country better is a fair and important one. Reagan gets very justified credit for his role in ending the Cold War, and living in a world which is not daily facing the threat of nuclear war is certainly a goodness. One does wonder how much longer Bolshevist Communism could have continued, especially with Gorbechev running the show, but few argue that Reagan's policy hastened its collapse (and I won't either). He encouraged a sense of optimism and pride in the country that was certainly necessary after the strife of the 60s and Vietnam and Watergate.

But he's also the one who presided over trading weapons to a fanatical Islamist state in exchange for American hostages, using the money to finance an illegal war responsible for thousands of deaths of civilians in Central America. If I have to explain why this is wrong, then you won't get it.

He is the one who propped up and provided all the Weapons of Mass Destruction to Saddam Hussein, in order to support him in the war against Iran (who he had just provided weapons to). The President of the Lebanon debacle. When people talk about the Islamist perception of the US as a weak nation that will run away when things get difficult, it is wise to determine where that perception comes from. The question of whether we should have been in Lebanon in the first place is a valid one, and I'm not 100% certain that Reagan was wrong to pull out. But by the rhetoric used by the current administration, Reagan was certainly a coward. (Particulary when viewed in the context of Spain's recent pullout.)

He is the President who maintained funding for the middle class while slashing social programs for the poorest. The president of the deficit and ketchup as a vegetable for schoolchildren. The president suggesting that people are homeless and attending soup kitchens "by choice".

To me, after the two good points above, Reagan's biggest legacy is economic. I see his policies as responsible for destroying the sense of fical responsibility in the Republican party. For my money, fiscal responsibility is one of the few things Republicanism had going for it. But Reagonomics encouraged wildly irresponsible combinations of tax cuts and spending increases, and a willful reliance on deficit spending. You don't have to look too far to see the shadows of these policies in our current Administration and Republican thought. In fact, government spending under President Bush 43 has increased faster than it did under Clinton. And I think its quite fair to trace this collapse of one of the core values of the Republican Party back to Reagan.

It's still to early to tell how history will judge President Reagan and his legacy. But in the ongoing eulogizing and lamentation, I think its important to reflect on the whole of his administration, and not just the pretty photographs.

Notes:

Reagan and US support of Iraq

Slate coverage of Reagan

Excellent article on Reagan's role in the collapse of the Cold War (Slate [of course])

Tangentially Rolf Peterson

Rolf Peterson was on Stateside today. My fellow Michigan Tech alumni may remember him; for the rest of you, he is a biology researcher who does most of his work on wolf populations, including a lot of research (over 30 years) on Isle Royale.

It was interesting to hear the latest from him, as I haven't heard him give a talk since probably 1999. He's an interesting guy with good insights, and (I think at least) a very reasonable approach to management. Ecological issues are a huge battleground, that (like everything in our increasingly political world) is led typically by nutcases on both sides. One side is made of "environmentalists" who declare logging, hunting, and any management of ecology at all as evil. The other side frames the argument as saving the animals at the expense of the people, as in "Would you rather feed your children or save the whales?" Both are more than happy to distort any study or action to suit their needs. Easterbrook has done a number of articles on this phenomenon from the enviro side. (Here and Here and Here. See Moveon.org do exactly what Easterbrook is talking about here. ) President Bush the younger is widely touted to have the "worst environmental record ever", despite the fact that pollution has consistently gone down, and regulations have gotten stricter in many areas during his tenure. While I'm no big fan of the Shrub, to willfully distort the truth in order to further your political agenda is despicable, no matter what your affiliation.

One such example you may have heard recently was from enviros (and from the omnipresent truth distortionists Moveon.org) about how under Bush there are more cities that don't meet Clean Air standards. What they aren't telling you is that the standards have changed. Dubya oversaw the changes in Clean Air standards making them much more strict. So air quality isn't getting worse, in fact, its getting better, but Bush isn't happy with that and has raised the bar higher. However, that doesn't make a good headline.

Equally disturbing is the continued denial of global warming trends. Despite years of actual data (not just simulations) and a real understanding of the mechanism causing it, the industrialists still deny its very existence. While it is still very much in debate how serious the change is, and what the repercussions will be, and what the proper response is, you no longer find serious climate scientists disputing its existence.

Again, I'm showing my idealism here, but if any of these groups put as much time into solving problems as they do into inventing them, we might have made some progress. I'll guarantee the amount of money spent over the last 15 years trying to lobby and duck tougher fuel economy standards for trucks and SUVs by the big three (Disclosure: My employer is the biggest of the big three) could have easily been invested in the engineering to deliver the needed efficiency gains.

In any case, it was good to hear someone like Peterson on the radio. My experience has tended to show me that the real environmentalists are the people who actually spend some time in the environment. As strange as it may sound in our hyper-sensitive world the most ecologically reasonable people I've met have been hunters, trappers, foresters, and rangers. If more attention was paid to the sober counsel of these people, we might achieve the needed balance to live peacefully with nature. Instead, we get continued pushes going too far in either direction, leaving everyone unhappy.

This is the price of politicizing.

DEMF

I spent the weekend at the Movement Festival (formerly known as the Detroit Electronic Music Festival. In thinking about it, I wanted to take a quick moment to make a pitch *for* Detroit, which is something you don't hear real often.

For all the problems we have here in Motown, there aren't a lot of places that do this kind of stuff. Detroit has at least four gigantic and completely free music festivals every summer.
1) Downtown Hoedown: 3 day country music festival in mid-may at Hart Plaza (FREE)
2) Movement Festival: 3-day 4-stages electronic music festival attracting nearly a million people every year so far (FREE)
3) Comerica Tastefest: Showcase for Detroit area restaurants featuring live music from major local and national artists (Four Stages) (FREE)
4) Ford Detroit International Jazz Festival (formerly Montreaux): 3-day 4-stage Jazz music festival featuring local and national acts (FREE)

Here's a short list of the artists you could have seen for free in the last year:

Chaka Khan, Brothers Groove (twice), Roberta Flack, Natalie Cole, Joey DeFrancesco, Marcus Belgrave Trumpet Summit, Kevin Saunderson and Kenny Larkin, Amp Fiddler, Stacey Pullen, Carl Craig, Francois K, Juan Atkins, Derrick May, Charlie Daniels Band, LeAnn Rimes, SheDAISY, Cake, Buddy Guy, The Romantics, Wilco, Ritchie Hawtin (Plastikman), John Aquaviva.

Movement was cool this year. Here's a couple of pictures to give you a sense of it.

There are usually several other events and free concerts to be found in the city. So, as much as there are real problems here, I wanted to point out one of the incredibly cool things about living in the most dangerous city in America.

Detroit News Article on Movement

Movement Festival Homepage

Tastefest

Hart Plaza Events