This Is the Title of This Journal

Another day, another book

2009-12-17T04:47:11Z

So, at long last I have completed reading Richard Evans' The Third Reich at War. It is mostly an account of the internal workings of Nazi Germany, from high policy to quotidian routine, from the outbreak of war in September 1939 to its final surrender in May 1945. The military situation is generally discussed only briefly, and rightfully so, as there are thousands of books describing in detail the military activities of the war.

It has been a gripping read, though of course, as with any text regarding 'the war' it is often grim and sombre stuff.

An aside: I wonder for how much longer the Second World War will be referred to as 'the war'. For those whose participation in the 1939-1945 war was limited, or for whom later events were of much greater significance, would such a term apply? What will happen once there are none alive from the war?

Another aside: Speaking of the deaths of those who were around during the war, in the final chapter of the book, Evans mentions that Rudolf Hess, who was Hitler's deputy until he flew to England in a mad bid to make peace in 1941, lived in Spandau prison until 1987 until he killed himself, aged ninety-three, "the last of the Nazi suicides" per the book.

Back to the main subject, one thing that particularly caught my eye was a brief story of the artistic production among the victims of Nazism. Evans mentions a Czech Jew, Ilse Weber, who had been a writer before the war. She worked as a nurse in the concentration camp in Theresienstadt, where she would write songs and sing them, accompanying herself on gutiar, to the children in the camp hospital. A particularly moving passage describes a lullaby she reportedly sang to her son and other children she voluntarily accompanied into a gas chamber at Auschwitz on October 6 1944. Apparently many of her works (including the lullaby, Wiegala), survived and have been recorded, most recently in 2007. I should like to get my hands on a CD if possible.

This reminds me of a photograph I saw of a manuscript for a song written by a prisoner in Dachau when I visited the memorial site located on the KZ (Konzentrationslager) grounds when I was in Germany in the summer of 2007. I really ought to see if there is a recording of this song.

Chipper thoughts for bedtime.

I feel like a delinquent...

2009-12-08T19:06:33Z

... having not posted here in about 2 weeks.

In my defence, I've been too busy with rehearsals and concerts in the evenings to maintain regular posts, especially since I don't do a lot of synoptic posting (which is, unless it's very involved, pretty easy to do).

I will try and hammer out something interesting this week/weekend.

2 rehearsals and 1 office Christmas party to go this week.

Give 'Em an Inch...

2009-11-18T05:09:19Z

As you may know from previous posts, I have lately been a regular reader of the blog Science-Based Medicine.

Although they occasionally review new literature, criticize pharmaceutical companies for unethical behaviour, or discuss new developments, one of the main foci of the SBM crew is debunking the set of treatments often referred to as 'complementary and/or alternative medicine' (CAM).

It appears a great deal of argument in favour of CAM is a simple implication argument, formed thusly:

P1: The state of modern scientific knowledge in the realm of medicine is self-admittedly incomplete.
C: Therefore, our treatment for (some/all disease, illness, &c.) should be adopted.

The problem that arises is that many CAM treatments (homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki therapy, crystal therapy, and so on) don't fill in the knowledge gaps in contemporary medical science. More often, they run afoul of well-established biology such as the Germ Theory of Disease or what is known about cancers.

This does not stop CAM proponents from advocating the usefulness of their pet therapies, in many cases suggesting (usually by implication as regulators frown upon openly fraudulent claims) that they can treat an enormous number of conditions. Witness this Canadian homeopath's website. Karen Jonas claims to have "significantly improved the well-being of individuals with the following:" and goes on to list over one hundred illnesses, disorders, phobias, and other health issues.

All that with homeopathy? I have traditionally considered myself a fairly credulous person, but I fail to see how chemically/phamacologically inert water can solve one hundred plus health problems, no matter how often it's been 'succussed'.

What about the customer testimonials, I hear you say? Well, these are a collection of anecdotes, and there are several reasons why anecdotes often end up not being useful, especially in assessing the usefulness of medical therapies.

On the other hand, look at her fees... hmm... what am I doing being a worker bee in an office again?

The Tax Grab That Wasn't...

2009-11-17T20:30:15Z

On July 31 next year, Ontario will move from a GST/PST (federal goods & services tax and separate provincial sales tax) system to an HST (harmonized sales tax) system.

Most of the time, this is a meaningless distinction for Ontario consumers. We pay both GST and PST on the majority of things we buy.

There are, however, a number of items, and often big-ticket items, for which we currently only pay GST. So, our sales taxes on several goods and services will be increasing from 5% to 13% (PST rate is 8%).

The provincial government, which decided to pursue tax harmonization in its 2009 budget, was well aware of this. So they included offsetting cuts to income taxes which will even out the added sales tax burden.

In fact, this National Post column points out that the current PST regime embeds (hides) tax in purchases of otherwise PST-free items. By harmonizing the rules by which PST is applied to match the GST, the embedded taxes are removed. The net effect, based on experience in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec (which harmonized their taxes in the '90s) is that price fluctuations for consumers end up within the range of +/- 1% from before harmonization, with some goods increasing in price and some decreasing.

The harmonization also simplifies the paperwork for businesses and the government, with cost-reduction benefits for both parties. This website outlines additional measures being undertaken by the Ontario government, including a variety of tax cuts, to soften the initial blow of the harmonized system.

I'm no fan of the McGuinty Liberal government, but it looks like they done good this time. I should point out here that my father is most definitely not a fan of the McGuinty government (like mentioning Joseph Smallwood among proud Newfoundlanders, mentioning McGuinty around my dad is like waving a flag in front of a bull) but he also thinks the province is on the right track with this move.

As usual, read user commentary on linked sites at your own peril. Indeed, I suspect much of the reaction to tax harmonization is best summed up by CHEZ 106.1 morning show news guy Randall Moore in his trademark 'One Minute Moore' rant.

Koodo can <Censored>

2009-11-16T21:00:23Z

Over the last year or so, I have been bombarded by bus-poster and radio advertisements for a discount-brand cellphone provider named Koodo, which I believe is a brand sponsored by Telus.

Koodo's advertisements feature mind-numbing made-up words such as 'tabtastic', 'textellation' and other neologisms linking cell-phone terminology and superlatives like some sort of horribly disfigured conjoined twins. I'm all for coining similar words for the purposes of a joke (one thinks of EA Sports' NHL 2003 title with the colour commentator whose 'colour' comments included "That was save-tacular!"). But for mass advertising campaigns? Please, spare me!

Umm.... Yeah...

2009-11-13T02:55:51Z

So most of you will probably not know that in early September I had a bout of mononucleosis.

It was, in my estimation, quite mild. I did not suffer from weeks and weeks of fatigue beforehand (I probably picked it up while on vacation in mid-August), and while the symptom 'trough' was quite unpleasant, my recovery was quite rapid.

The only long-term concern was the doctor we saw (not my normal family doctor as he was on vacation himself at the time) advising me to stay off the bottle for about three months.

This was a concern (for Jonathan too, as it turns out, since when he had mono he received no such advice concerning alcohol) as while I certainly do not make a habit of drinking a lot, I do often have a glass of wine at dinner and I like having my pints at the pub.

Today, Leyna (my girlfriend) got me an 'Advent calendar' (you know, the kind with the chocolate punch-out days) from the NHL. The NHL calls it a 'holiday countdown calendar', so Leyna scratched out the word holiday and put in Beer (there is a reason I love this woman!).

I am astounded that, of all groups, the NHL created such a calendar. Advent calendars are an explicitly Christian phenomenon (although marking the days of Advent, when one is busily preparing oneself for the Incarnation, by picking out and eating chocolates is a rather sketchy way of going about the whole business) - I'm sure my readers can correct me if other religions have adapted the practice or if Christianity adapted it from someone else (although since chocolate has only been a staple of Christian-majority societies since the peoples of Eurasia discovered and colonized the Americas, I doubt it).

On the other hand, for the purpose I am putting it to use for (busily working on the first 12 days as I write this) it seems perfectly suited, since hockey and beer are quite related and it would be a bit tawdry to use an explicitly religious calendar to count down the days to drinking beer.

On the other other hand, will I be saying a prayer of thankfulness on high after my first sip of sweet, golden beer in three months? Yeah, probably.

Remembrance Day

2009-11-12T04:04:32Z

Known as Veteran's Day for Americans (and other names worldwide, but I'm not sure anyone reading this blog is from anywhere outside North America).

A day of great importance, one that has grown beyond its original commemoration of the veterans of the Great War (the First World War) to include, of course, the Second World War, the Korean War, and indeed all 20th-21st century conflicts in which North Americans (and others) have participated.

The practices surrounding November 11 vary greatly; it seems to me that the victors of the Great War (and especially of the war on the Western Front) are the countries most likely to have a holiday or special commemoration on November 11, and the ones who were in from the beginning more likely to have sombre ceremony on November 11 than the ones who joined in later (the US, for example, has its sombre remembrances of war dead on Memorial Day - American readers, please correct me if this practice is changing!).

While it seems to me that over the years a great deal of mythology has accumulated around Remembrance Day - at least in Canada - the core of the day remains intact: an imperative for citizens to take time to reflect upon the sacrifices made, if not necessarily on our behalf, then at least at our behest (via acts of Parliament declaring war or authorizing troop deployments to foreign battlegrounds) by the personnel of our armed forces.

One of the most common misconceptions I find arising is the notion that the soldiers of past wars were fighting and dying, in some Christ-like way, for the benefit of us, the present generation. This strikes me as being a bit full of hubris, as if somehow we are more important than their generation was. Certainly we have benefitted from the work of our veterans and war dead, past and present, although it is highly doubtful that the basic freedoms of the North American polities would have been seriously undermined in the event of, say, a German victory in either world war (never mind that the Germans could not have won either war) or, say, a North Korean victory in the Korean War.

It is without doubt, on the other hand, that the participation of North Americans in the world wars and in Korea led to much improved outcomes for the peoples living in the affected theatres. The Canadians were widely regarded as the finest troops in the Great War; their expertise and the Americans' fresh and numerous armies (and possibly also the flu) certainly shortened the conflict. Without the Allied invasion of Western Europe in 1944 the Red Army would have had to advance through all of Germany to ensure the destruction of the Nazi Reich, the result of which would have meant Soviet domination over Europe (save for the Iberian and Italian peninsulas). And even the most cursory glance at the two Koreas today leads one to believe South Koreans are glad the US-led UN forces intervened in the Korean War.

That Western Europe and South Korea remained free has surely resulted in an improved situation - in terms of liberty, security, and prosperity - for North America.

We also commemorate our dead and veterans of wasteful wars (the Great War, Vietnam) and of contemporary conflicts whose outcomes are still in doubt (the 2001-present Afghan conflict and the 2003-present Iraq war).

I think it is very important to separate our political views about the wars acknowledged today from the requirement to remember those who served in them and what they went through - or are going through - at the command of their civilian governments. Whether we think this war or that is justifiable or unjustifiable, or was necessary or a senseless waste, is of no importance. What matters is that we have demanded, in the past and in the present, that our armed forces enter into battle to kill and destroy, to suffer and die, and we must put aside time in our quotidian lives to remember the ones who come back and the ones who don't.

I can't find it on YouTube, but the British composer John Tavener crafted a beautiful setting of the text "They Shall Grow Not Old" (the Ode of Remembrance), often recited at Remembrance Day ceremonies. Had I found something, I would surely have linked it to this blog for your enjoyment and edification.

I've Been Meaning to Do This for a While...

2009-11-08T04:41:54Z

At lunch break at work or at home I often read weblogs. This post from the Ottawa Citizen Ed Board, from last week, is one I've been meaning to comment on for some time, but never got a chance to. Since my comment would, strictly speaking, be trolling (since I would not, in fact, be commenting on the original post) I have chosen to do so here.

I would like to offer comment on the comment posted by the person anonymously titled 'doutfull taxpayer'. Allow me to go through line by line.

Bluntly put, I don't trust the competence of the governmenr on H1N1

Easy to say. There have been mistakes in the roll-out of the vaccine. A lot of it had to do with the fact that the federal public health agency approved it before the provinces were ready. This, I suspect, has to do with the fact that the federal government based its approval on a standard vaccine trial undertaken in Belgium before waiting for the Canadian trial to come in. One may find this a bit sketchy, but how different is the physiology of Belgians from Canadians?

I was once a nurse and early in my career I found out that medicine is only as good as you know in retrospect, after the results come in, years later, after all the hype!

This is in fact true. However, as per this medical blog, there is now 50 years of research on flu vaccines, so we now have the retrospect, and the results are in. Flu vaccines, indeed all vaccines, are not 100% effective (a fact that public health authorities readily acknowledge). They are, however, better than any other method at reducing mortality and morbidity rates of the diseases they are meant to combat.

• Thalidomide was hands down the answer to morning sickness …trust me I’m your doctor,

One should note in the '50s and '60s medical practicioners had a very different attitude to dealing with patients. Things are a little different now, although there are still old-school doctors about.

As far as thalidomide goes, it seems to me that the hoopla over thalidomide is in fact a triumph for medical science and government regulation. A product initially thought to be safe for use was found not to be and was yanked from the market. Note that research has been ongoing and thalidomide is back in use for a specific set of medical conditions now that the adverse effects are better understood.

• Silicone used in breast implants was totally safe…. trust me I’m a doctor,

This is touched on by Dan Gardner in his book Risk and in the Wikipedia article (I know, you shouldn't cite Wikipedia, but this is a blog, not an academic paper). The Wiki summary is thus:

Since the early 1990s, nearly a dozen comprehensive systemic reviews have been commissioned by various governments' health ministries to examine the alleged links between silicone gel breast implants and systemic diseases. A clear consensus has emerged from these independent scientific reviews that there is no clear evidence of a causal link between the implantation of silicones and connective tissue disease. The conclusions of these reviews are summarized:

[I cut a table of reviews out, emphasis mine.]

It should be noted that this is about as strong as scientific statements get. They don't say breast implants don't cause disease; they say that the current evidence does not support such a conclusion.

Are implants "totally safe"? No, of course not. If anyone told you that they would be lying. But most of the fearmongering about breast implants is just that.

• X-rays were once used to fit shoes… trust me … oh never mind,

When this behaviour took place, people were not aware of the dangers of overexposure to high-energy electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays. In short, the best available evidence at the time suggested the use of X-rays in this fashion was not hazardous. As more knowledge accumulated about the risks of EM radiation exposure, the use of these devices fell off and they were banned.

• A witch's brew of prescription drugs to regulate your blood pressure, prevent unwanted pregnancy or cause wanted erections and drugs to take away the symptoms of poor lifestyle choices etc, etc.

What is wrong with people taking medication to regulate their blood pressure? The Pathophysiology section of the Wikipedia entry on blood pressure gives a pretty good list of reasons why people regulating their blood pressure should be doing it. Maybe this 'doutfull taxpayer' thinks people should be at higher risk of death from the potential effects of hypertension? That is the sentiment the statement communicates to me.

What's wrong with preventing unwanted pregnancy? Preventing unwanted pregnancy sounds a lot better than aborting a fetus (particularly for people with anti-abortion stances), infanticide, parental neglect or abuse (which unwanted children are most at risk for, I should imagine) or being the unfortunate parent who is so poor or dispossessed that one's child is one of those who dies every day from malnutrition (according to Paul Sullivan, anyway).

What's wrong with causing a wanted erection? Must men with impotence (renamed the less deflating 'erectile dysfunction' by Pfizer marketers) be denied a healthy sex life? Do they all 'deserve it' somehow?

Finally, the symptoms of most 'poor lifestyle choices' can rarely be taken away by pharmaceuticals. Some poor lifestyle choices land you in prison. Can prescription drugs, if used as prescribed, take away prison? Some poor lifestyle choices can cost a job or a family. Is there a suite of prescription drugs, if used properly, that can get those things back? The only 'poor lifestyle choice' I can think of whose symptoms can often be attenuated by drugs is obesity. Or are 'poor lifestyle choices' being conflated with genuine mental illness, which can be and often is successfully managed through prescription drugs?

All these interventions/cures came with a truckload of “experts/snake-oil-salesmen” that insisted that they were safe.

To which my answer is: so what? So do all sorts of interventions/cures like homeopathy, crystal healing, energy healing, chelation therapy for autism spectrum disorder or 'German New Medicine' for cancer. The difference is that for the treatments and procedures discussed above, the evidence accumulated thus far either justifies their use or caused them to be banned, whereas the interventions/cures I have brought up have little to no evidence demonstrating their medical efficacy (and at least one of them (the one linked to SBM) should get its practictioner(s) put in prison for murder) and they continue to be peddled by their supporters.

I was forced to give my communicative affectionate son the MMR vaccine and then he stopped talking or interacting and bingo he was suddenly autistic.

I am going to say this three times: there is no evidence demonstrating a causal link between vaccinations and autism. There is no evidence demonstrating a causal link between vaccinations and autism. There is NO evidence demonstrating a causal link between vaccinations and autism.

Wikipedia summarizes the current knowledge about autism's sources thusly: "Autism has a strong genetic basis, although the genetics of autism are complex and it is unclear whether ASD is explained more by rare mutations, or by rare combinations of common genetic variants." Incidentally, Wiki cites this source for their summary.

In short: someone with ASD almost certainly has it from birth. Vaccines get blamed because children get shots around the same time that the symptoms of ASD are usually first observed. From Wikipedia: "Parents usually notice signs in the first two years of their child's life. The signs usually develop gradually, but some autistic children first develop more normally and then regress."

So the doutfull taxpayer has confused correlation with causation (a very, very, very common mistake almost all of us make almost all the time).

I came from a large family of 8 and yes we all got measles mumps and chicken pox and we all survived.

I will break from referring to 'doutfull' in the third person here: doutfull, you and your family are lucky. A lot of grieving British parents whose children died of measles (due to large numbers of parents making the same faulty association you did above failed to get their children the vaccination) would suggest your anecdote is a load of bullocks.

I think that the problem is that we have a whole generation of kids brought up on food preservatives, additives, antibiotics, vaccines and a truckload of over-the-counter medications that guarantee they won’t feel the natural symptoms of natural ailments. These children have immune systems that never had to do anything from fighting an infection with a fever to dealing with normal childhood maladies.

Feel the 'natural symptoms' of 'natural ailments'? Readers, pardon my bluntness, but what the fuck? Natural symptoms include death (from measles, pertussis, polio, or diptheria - natural ailments, all). Should my cousin's baby, a beautiful boy about half a year old as I write this, have to be exposed to a risk of death from pertussis when there is a means by which he can be protected from it? Influenza is a natural ailment. Should I, as one of the higher-risk groups for the 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain, let myself experience the 'natural symptoms' (ranging from having to take time off work I can't afford to take to having to go on a ventilator to dying)? How does anyone dare imply such a thing?

Also, children's immune systems face challenges every single day of their lives that no amount of food preservatives, additives, vaccines or over-the-counter meds can stop. To quote the Public Health Agency of Canada: "Children are exposed to many foreign antigens every day. Routine consumption of food introduces new bacteria into the body, and numerous bacteria live in the mouth and nose, exposing the immune system to still more antigens. An upper respiratory viral infection exposes a child to between 4 and 10 antigens, and a case of "strep throat" to between 25 and 50." So the claim presented is demonstrably false. Also, it does not follow that lack of exposure to an antigen somehow makes a person's immune system weaker or that increased exposure to antigens makes it stronger. Exposure to any given antigen does not guarantee increased protection to any other given antigen (why do people can get sick from influenza year after year? Answer: the antigens change, reducing or voiding the previous protection provided).

My lack of confidence in anything the government tries to do or cover up leaves me in a quandary.

Well, frankly, there's no point trying to covince anyone who comes right out and says this. In fact, from this statement 'doutfull' is not in a quandary at all. He or she has complete lack of confidence in Canadian public health agencies (from the top down), period.

• Can I trust that they were right about the urgency of this pandemic?

Maybe. Maybe not. Pandemic planners grapple with a lot of uncertainty when novel diseases (such as SARS, the H5N1 'bird flu' strain of a few years back, and of course the present H1N1 pandemic strain) appear on the scene. They often have to make and implement policy on very incomplete information. In the case of 2009 pandemic H1N1, the initial mortality rates in Mexico were high enough to justify some concern. To quote from Science-Based Medicine:

Public Health and ID docs have been worrying a repeat of 1918. [...] When H1N1 hit in Mexico last spring, it wasn’t known if it would be mild or fatal, although the preliminary Mexican mortality rates looked worrisome, those rates have not been repeated in the industrialized world.

Those in charge of preparing for pandemics or outbreaks always have two choices: Over prepare and look like a fool if the pandemic does not occur or under prepare and look incompetent if the pandemic does occur. And make no mistake, if there is a fatal pandemic like 1918, there will be no way to prepare and those in charge, no matter what, will look like incompetent fools.

So, it may well be that public health officials did not need to be as concerned as they were. The results will be in eventually. But they were not making their decisions with complete, comprehensive information. Because of the lead time to produce and approve vaccines, they had to decided to move forward with mass vaccination based on the evidence available when pandemic H1N1 first emerged. At the time, the evidence evidently persuaded them to go forward.

• Can I trust that they are not with holding information that would cause me to doubt their conclusions?

Yes. Given how many different governments, public health agencies, private companies and dedicated individuals there are involved in trying to minimize the spread, mortality and morbidity of pandemic H1N1, the probability that every single person involved is somehow suppressing information about the efficacy, safety, etc. of the vaccine is approximately 0.

• Can I trust that they have manufactured a vaccine with no “later-to-be-discovered” side effects?

Almost certainly yes. Vaccines have been in use for decades, and the means by which the pandemic flu strain vaccine has been manufactured is exactly the same way flu vaccines have been produced for years. If there really were any "later-to-be-discovered" side effects they'd have come out of the woodwork by now.

• Can I trust the media reporting of the effects of the vaccine on the population?

It depends. If the report being reviewed attempts to control the reporter's psychological biases, ideological predispositions, and tries to be factual (not balanced, factual), then, yes you probably can. Otherwise, take grains of salt of varying size depending on the infiltration of bias.

How Not to Argue About the Monarchy

2009-11-07T01:45:28Z

As most of you are no doubt aware, Canada is a constitutional monarchy. The position of head of state is occupied (presently) by Her Royal Highness, Queen Elizabeth II, who is at once Queen of England and of Canada (and of several other countries across the world). This is largely a ceremonial position, with the Queen rarely taking part in any important decision making. As the head of state changes over time, the position itself is usually known as the Crown. The hard work of running affairs is left to the federal and provincial Parliamentary governments, who have the Crown's representatives - the governor-general and the lieutenant-governors (pronounced LEFTenant-governors, thank you very much) to rubber-stamp Parliamentary laws and occasionally resolve constitutional impasses. In theory, the Crown can opt not to sign a law passed by the legislatures. In practice, this rarely takes place as the Crown is supposed to be apolitical and usually leaves striking down unconstitutional law to the Supreme Court.

Every so often in this country, a debate arises about abolishing the institution of the monarchy. Pro- and anti-monarchial views (monarchists vs. republicans, you might say) get aired in newspapers, on TV, the radio, and on the Internet. There are, I am sure, cogent arguments to be made either way. I am about to present two arguments that are not so cogent.

On one side, we have Paul Sullivan from Vancouver, who writes for the free daily Metro. His column is not so much a reasoned argument as a rant. I won't dissect it piece by piece since most of the column is essentially an appeal to emotion from one end to another. I will touch on three points he makes:

"It's not just that the English monarchy is an affront to the dignity of people from Bombay to Belfast to La Belle Province, although there is that."

Really? There are quite a lot of people in all three locations named who would argue that the monarchy is not, in fact, an affront to their dignity. And how, exactly, is the monarchy an affront to said dignity? Such an assertion requires more than just its statement to make it true.

"It's not just that these people live in an absurd state-sponsored luxury while 24,000 of the world's children die of hunger every day."

This is an appeal to pity and to outrage. Strictly speaking, there is easily enough money in the world to maintain the Royal Family (most of their costs not being borne by Canadians, I should note) and feed hungry children. Furthermore, an increase in funding to feeding starving children does not magically cut down their death rate: there are often formidable obstacles to delivering food aid. I agree that more money should be put aside for development and aid - on the basis that Canada long ago promised to spend a certain proportion of GDP on development/aid and has yet to meet its promise. But that does not mean we will suddenly feed all the hungry children (as much as we would like to) or that we have to abolish the monarchy to do it.

Finally, regarding the current Governor-General, Michaëlle Jean:

"Of course she's not the head of state! She's a CBC reporter! Get over yourself!"

The first sentence is true. The second is not (she was a CBC reporter, now she is the Governor-General). But the fact that governors-general have been over-reaching their position is not a reason to abolish the monarchy. It's a reason to have less ambitious governors-general who understand and appreciate their role.

So, on to the second article. This is pro-monarchy, by columnist Naomi Lakritz of the Calgary Herald. As an aside, her bio notes that she used to write for the supermarket tabloid the National Examiner. At the risk of verging on ad hominem, this may explain her argument style (rather like Paul's, it's short on reasoning, long on emotion). She's a better sophist than Paul is, though, I will give her that.

As far as I can tell, Naomi's argument is as follows (P is premise, C is conclusion):
P1: Canada has deep historical ties to the Crown.
P2: Without the monarchy, Canada is just US Lite.
P3: Without the monarchy, Canadian identity is a void.
C: Canada must retain the monarchy.

Premise 1 is certainly true. But it does not follow that Canada must remain bound to an institution just because it has deep ties to it. It also does not follow that abolishing the Crown as the Canadian head of state makes our history meaningless. What matters is whether the institution, constitutionally speaking, is of any use to Canada. I will argue later that it is, but as far as I can tell Naomi does not make this point.

Premise 2 is demonstrably false. Certainly one of the motives for Confederation in 1867 was to avoid having British North America get swallowed up by the US and to ensure the North-West Frontier (what is now the Prairie provinces) stayed British. It is nevertheless the case that the US and Canada were and are quite different in their mode of governance, in their national/civil values, and in their socio-economic arrangements. Canada cannot quite escape a semi-subordinate position vis-à-vis the US due to our population & the size of our economy compared to the US, but we have never really been "US Lite" and never really will be, and the monarchy or lack thereof is not really going to change that.

Premise 3 is a slippery-slope style of argument (with a healthy dose of false dichotomy thrown in). A lot of the argumentation Naomi uses to support Premise 3 involves the 'political correctness' straw man, a useful fellow brought forward by anyone with an axe to grind against imaginary ideological foes: e.g.: "With political correctness stifling so many traditions that have been part and parcel of the Canadian psychological landscape for so long, how much more can be tossed away before there is nothing left of what defines Canada?" I'm afraid to say, Naomi, that what defines Canada, ultimately, are its geography, the people living in it, and its constitutional/legal arrangements. The latter two are particuarly malleable, and hence so are Canadian traditions and what constitutes Canadian identity. This is not 'political correctness' in action or 'discarding identity' as we see fit. It's called generational turnover. Deal with it.

Another whopper: "There is no denying the forces that shaped Canada; the only choice is for Canadians to embrace them and honour them." Just because the monarchy is a force that shaped Canada in the past does not mean Canada is obliged to embrace and honour it. I have no plans on embracing or honouring the racism that motivated the mass importation of Chinese to work on the Canadian Pacific railway (they did the low-paying, menial and dangerous tasks), although both the racism and the railway were forces that shaped the country. Another force that shaped Canada is the manner in which aboriginals were treated by the Canadian government and European settlers. Hardly stuff worth honouring, although it certainly can't be denied nor should it be forgotten. These two examples are a bit extreme, I will concede, but leave low-hanging rhetorical fruit like that and someone's going to come pick it.

Finally, although Naomi makes much of how we should hold on to the monarchy as a way to differentiate ourselves from the US, I would gather from other writings I have seen of hers that she would in fact like to see Canada emulate the US in almost every other way that counts. If that were to happen, wouldn't that make us more "US Lite" than discarding the monarchy? So it seems a bit bizarre for her to argue that distinction from the US is such an important part of our identity on the one hand and argue that we should erase that distinction on the other.

Now, having offered my opinion on these articles, I will offer my opinion on the institution of the monarchy. I am a monarchist by sentiment, but sentiment is not in and of itself a good reason to retain the monarch as the head of state of Canada (after all, Naomi's argument was almost all about sentiment and I just pooh-poohed her column). I would argue two compelling reasons exist to retain the Crown.

First, how do we replace it? This is a logistical question which has two elements. A change to the Constitution would be required, which requires that all the provinces agree, and (unless I am mistaken) a referendum. Getting the ten provinces to agree on anything (except perhaps getting more money from the feds) is like herding cats, and Canadians haven't usually been supportive of anything in referenda (the last round of Constitutional change, Quebec separatism, moving to mixed-proportional representation voting in Ontario - it usually fails). The second element of 'how do we do it' is this: how do we decide who will be the head of state, and, well, who will be it? Voting for someone implies we are investing them with real power, but unless we also ditch our Parliamentary system in toto, we aren't. Not voting seems a bit antidemocratic if we are ditching the monarchy (especially if our argument for ditching the monarchy is because it's not a democratic way to decide a head of state). And the GG and LGs are supposed to be non-partisan. A head of state who depends on voting might not be.

The second compelling reason has to do with symmetry. I will borrow the argument from Dan Gardner here: under the Crown, the provinces and the federal state are equals under our current Constitutional arrangement, and by extension so are the governor-general and the lieutenant-governors. Ditching the Crown could put this relationship in peril (Dan is specifically referring to replacing the Crown with the GG as head of state, but I think the warning applies to any discussion about ditching the monarchy). The federal government in Canada has worked hard, variously deliberately or inadvertently, to ruin that symmetry. The Crown is the last-ditch defender of the current Constitutional order, and maybe it's not so bad that we can't get at the monarch with pitchforks and torches if there is a truly bad breakdown. One notes here that a similar attempt to build a symmetrical confederal republican system was attempted in the United States; not only has the federal government become predominant over time but in fact the US fought a civil war that was, at least in part, based on some states' grievances against this asymmetry.

To conclude: many columnists suck at argumentation, usually when they base their arguments on mindless appeals to emotion or vague, handwaving slippery-slope claims.

Any attempts to pick apart my rebuttals and points are, of course, welcome so I can improve my own style of argumentation.

Only in Canada...

2009-11-06T03:44:36Z

... can a scandal about professional hockey players and H1N1 vaccination lead to a senior public health official getting sacked.

The players of the NHL Calgary Flames and their families were able to 'jump the queue', so to speak, in getting vaccinated before Albertans else who had spent hours or even days in line waiting. They got their shots shortly before the clinics were temporarily shut down due to shortages of vaccine supplies.

While I can understand the outrage (the rich and famous apparently getting a leg up over the rest of us for no discernable reason), I do not feel too much outrage is justified, nor should heads have rolled at Alberta's health board.

The article notes that at the time the Flames made their visit the clinics were open to anyone who wanted to get a shot. CBC expands on this, noting that AHS (Alberta Health Services) officials apparently set up a special clinic for the Flames, reasoning that their appearance at a regular clinic would cause a commotion.

So, yes, this does seem like queue-jumping, and surely there are more important people to be vaccinated (in Ontario, the flu vaccination clinics are presently taking priority demographics over others with some exceptions which I will now discuss).

However, my mother noted that the priests at our church have been vaccinated, even though they are not in the high-priority categories. This was done because they go out and visit people a lot, in their homes and in hospitals. You do not want priests to be vectors of disease transmission.

Similarly, NHL players are public figures. They visit hospitals, they show up to events, they make appearances. They also travel a lot. So an NHL player with H1N1 could spread it around. Usually during the first few days the virus is incubating there are no symptoms. A team heading out on a road trip could find a player is sick waking up in the hotel one morning, after sharing a plane with the players and team staff (to say nothing of exposing the flight attendants, press following the team, airport staff and others).

AHS is taking full responsibility for the affair, up to sacking a staffer. However, this sacking has all the appearance of scapegoating to appease public fury. 'Because the mob demanded it' is not a good reason to fire someone. Can a suit for unlawful dismissal be far behind? Or perhaps the staffer who got canned feels (s)he deserves it - lucky for AHS if (s)he does. Setting up a special clinic is a questionable call, but I have (hopefully) demonstrated that there could be at least some rationale behind it.

I agree that the circumstances in which the Flames received their shots are objectionable. I disagree that they are unjustifiable, I do not support the kind of self-righteous outrage that the comment boards of those news posts are surely filled with, and I do not believe it was necessary to fire someone at AHS over it, especially if the staff involved had been otherwise competent in the execution of their duties.

Still an 'only in Canada' story.

Japanese Diplomat, (Sort of) Holocaust Hero

2009-11-05T18:12:39Z

This is an interesting story an old colleague of mine posted on Facebook about a Japanese diplomat who defied his own Foreign Ministry to help Jewish refugees in Lithuania flee to Asia, North America and the Caribbean.

The diplomat, Chiune Sugihara, filled out visas, against explicit orders by Japan's Foreign Ministry, in the summer of 1940 to allow Polish and Lithuanian Jews to leave the country after its annexation by the USSR. Approximately 6,000 Jews are estimated to have escaped Lithuania due to Sugihara's efforts.

While this took place before Nazi Germany invaded Lithuania as part of its invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, it is quite likely that many or most of the people Sugihara assisted would have perished in the Einsatzgruppen massacres in the summer or once the extermination of Jews in Europe began in earnest in the fall and in 1942.

Suhigara did not receive any recognition of his deeds until the late 1960s; today there are a number of memorials commemorating him.

Heartwarming stuff.

Hallowe'en Over, Vincent Price Overdose Avoided

2009-11-02T20:35:27Z

So, thank goodness, since Monday there were, to my knowlege, no further lunch requests for Thriller, nor was it played (to my knowledge) on BOB last week during working hours. Any possible worse songs were also fortunately avoided.

Even better, I switched the station to CHEZ 106.1 (Classic Rock) one day while working late and we got to listen to it through Thursday, Friday and today. The music is much more enjoyable.

On average, BOB played a mix of stuff I enjoyed, stuff I couldn't stand, and 'meh' stuff. CHEZ tends to play more enjoyable music overall, almost nothing I detest, and a good deal less 'meh' music.

All that is my opinion, but it is making me happier (and maybe more productive?) here at work.

In particular, Friday saw the kick-off of the monster music Classic Rock weekend, which had some great stuff (Werewolves of London, Highway to Hell, &c).

Best of all: no more 'boogie breaks'. At least until we switch back.

For you punctuation mavens...

2009-10-26T17:52:50Z

When using the abbreviated form of et cetera (either etc. or the older &c.) are there any guidelines for using commas after it when the term is used in a subclause or list?

For example: At the hardware store, I am buying nails, screws, washers, etc., so I have all the bits I need to put up the shed.

In the example, would the comma be necessary or not? As a matter of clarity I would use commas myself, but I would like to know what other people think.

Vincent Price 'till your ears bleed

2009-10-26T16:13:07Z

Today on the all-request lunch on the radio, one of the first songs played was (surprise, surprise) Michael Jackson's Thriller.

By Friday, I expect to be quite sick of hearing Thriller. But I should have nothing to fear: surely, no one in their right mind would request One-Eyed Purple People Eater (or whatever the title is), right?

...
...

Right?

Rule #32: Enjoy the Little Things

2009-10-20T16:34:46Z

I thought I should recommend Zombieland to all who haven't seen it.

It's a very funny movie with surprisingly good cinematic qualities (characterization & character development, the plot). The actual cause of the zombie contagion is hilariously ridiculous, but is ultimately irrelevant to the story - all that matters is the focus on the central characters as they try to survive in a zombie-infested world.

The movie has its touching moments of human connection, its sad moments as the inherent tragedy leaks through the humour (the premise of the film is that humanity has mostly been destroyed in this plague, surely as tragic as it gets), and its sublime moments of bone-crunching destruction of zombies.

And the celebrity cameo is priceless.

Mythbusters, H1N1-style

2009-10-16T16:16:33Z

If you like seeing ridiculous people getting taken down a peg (and I do - I even enjoy getting taken down a peg myself when I'm being ridiculous) then you will like this SBM post.

Apart from being informative, the post is humourous and entertaining, and written in a more colloquial style. As someone who has not done science classes (and never done medicine classes) I can assure you this is a plus.

The post does have its serious turns: the author points out his pediatric ICU is generally at capacity these days (during what in other years would be the 'dog days' at the ICU) due to H1N1.

Get thee thy flu shot!

2009-10-15T18:48:31Z

My understanding is that Canadians will be able to get H1N1 flu shots Canada-wide from November 1st. Older citizens and residents & staff of nursing/old-age homes are already getting seasonal flu shots, while the rest of us will be able to get them in December. American or other readers of this blog should check with their respective public health authorities as to when H1N1 and trivalent seasonal flu vaccines will be available.

In addition to getting vaccinated you should practice proper handwashing, keeping surfaces clean, and sneezing/coughing into sleeves or tissues rather than hands or the open air. If you get sick, stay at home and do not go to school or work.

Reasons to get your H1N1 flu shot

Unless you are older (60+ or so) you have approximately no immunity to H1N1.
H1N1 tends to inflict its worst damage on young, healthy adolescents and adults from 10 to 60, which is most students and workers.
You will either avoid getting infected outright or attenuate your symptoms even if you get H1N1 flu.
If you get flu anyway, you will decrease the likelihood of passing flu to others, whether you are symptomatic or asymptomatic.

Reasons to get your Seasonal flu shot

If you deal with the very old, the very young, or the ill, if you get the flu you pose a potentially mortal danger to them.
You will either avoid getting infected outright or attenuate your symptoms if you get seasonal flu.
If you get flu anyway, you will decrease the likelihood of passing flu to others.
Seasonal flu can still cripple or kill you, although it is much less likely to if you are young and healthy.

Reasons not to get a flu shot

You are allergic to the vaccine.
You have a past medical history of moderate to severe adverse reactions to vaccination (thus making it likely you would suffer an adverse reaction to this vaccine).
You live in complete isolation from other humans and expect to interact with no one else this flu season.

There are, I believe, no other good reasons not to get a flu shot (especially not "you didn't feel like it").

This 2003 article estimates approximately 36,000 deaths annually in normal flu years from influenza in the US and 700-2500 deaths annually in Canada. I have seen estimates that the added effect of H1N1 flu will result in up to 90,000 deaths worst-case in the US this flu season (haven't seen a Canadian estimate).

This is not a large number of people as a total of the population, but it's not insignificant (CDC estimates for annual homicide deaths in the US is approx. 20,000, or 55.6% the 'normal' annual influenza death toll), and flu deaths are preventable via vaccination.

As usual, this blog is an excellent resource for further flu information and additional research. I also recommend the Centers for Disease Control and Health Canada websites.

Also, don't listen to doomsayers who think another 1918 flu is around the corner. Flu vaccination (which was not available in 1918-19, after all) should ensure a multi-million death toll is avoided. So should the lack of 'industrial-scale' modern warfare involving large masses of troops packed tightly in trenches (hardly known for their hygeinic conditions).

Car Drivers on Highways....

2009-10-15T17:27:45Z

... need to not cut in front of city busses.

Hint to such drivers: if the bus cannot stop in time it will rear-end you.

The bus might get badly dented up front and passengers knocked around with mild to moderate injuries to driver & passengers. Your vehicle will be smashed up completely and you will probably be severely injured or even killed.

So don't do it.

Geekdom Update

2009-10-14T17:42:47Z

So I couldn't make it to my weekly wargame session this week. We play a game called World in Flames, a strategic-level Second World War game. This game, I am playing Germany (someone has to). This session saw the end of 1941. I received this update from my teammate.

It turns out it may have been just as well. Although the Japanese were a bit hurt by American subs, convoy-wise and could face some problems with the USSR, they are on pace to get their historic perimeter and should have a reasonable shot at extra expansion elsewhere before having to deal with the American juggernaut by the end of 1942.

In Europe, meanwhile, things haven't been great for the Axis. We were a year behind finishing off France and had to scrap plans to go after Gibraltar in 1941, so in the meantime we were taking care of Yugoslavia before moving on to grappling with The Bear in 1942.

However, this game session a potentially dangerous Anglo-French landing in Yugoslavia was dispatched and the Americans failed three attempts to declare war on Germany & Italy (the US player has to roll a die to be able to declare war; his failure to do so three times in one two-month turn will hopefully set him back until March if not later). British carrier air power was also smacked down, giving the Axis a continued edge in airpower in the Mediterranean probably through the summer.

So while we had a slow start, we will still be on the strategic offensive through 1942 except in the Med (an invasion of Sardinia is likely this summer now that the Allies have conquered Libya and Vichy North Africa) and might still be on the offensive in the USSR in 1943 if the 1942 campaign goes well enough.

All in all, while we will be in it deep by 1944-45 we might be holding on to the Axis core territories for the game win.

Too... Much... Turkey....

2009-10-13T16:46:53Z

Edit: Found a sentence that ended nonsensically. Had to fix. - Oct 14

So I don't often post synoptic blogs on this journal. But I thought a little bit of narrative would suit the end of the (Canadian) Thanksgiving long weekend.

This was a pretty good weekend for a number of reasons:
- Lots of excellent food;
- My girlfriend was able to come;
- The weather forecast was wrong and there was very little rain.

On Saturday, we picked my girlfriend up from her work (she works at a wine retailer) just after 7, whereupon we drove to my aunt and uncle's in Tweed, Ontario, to meet with my Dad's side of the family. We met up with my brother in Tweed (he is in London for school as you are no doubt aware). Would have been nice for my sister to be there, but she is on the Pacific coast in British Columbia, living near a ski resort (Whistler) of all places. Incidentally, my sister will be in the thick of things during the 2010 Winter Olympics, which I would say seems pretty cool.

Anyway, while my brother stayed at the Vances', my parents, Leyna (girlfriend), myself, and two of my cousins stayed at a bed & breakfast outside of town. The B&B is based on a farm, we've been using it on Thanksgiving weekends for years, and the food is fantastic. The room Leyna and I stayed in didn't have the world's best beds, but it was a good enough sleep and the breakfasts were really, really good. Did I mention how good the food was?

Anyway, Sunday was spent in Tweed, with three walks (one of which was a shopping expedition), a quick (for me - knocked out early) game of Risk, and a turkey dinner. We slept at the B&B again and were up early in the morning to go to Renfrew to see my Mom's side of the family (Monday being a holiday here in Canada).

This was a much shorter Thanksgiving (which was actually too bad). My grandmother lives in town now, instead of a sprawling property next to the golf club. We had more turkey 'dinner' (at about 1:15 or so in the afternoon, only 4 hours after a hearty B&B breakfast!) with a whole bunch of extra guests. After lunch we went up to the Renfrew Golf Club for a brief ceremony. My step-grandfather, Larry died this past spring, and since he was an avid golfer all of his life - although his ability to play golf was impaired by a collision many years ago - it was decided that his final resting place should be the golf club. As my grandmother joked on Monday, sometimes she thought golf was his first love and she was a close second.

Anyway, for the ceremony, the golf club had planted a maple tree in Larry's honour next to the clubhouse, and his ashes were poured into a hole dug near the base of the tree, then covered up. During good weather months while the club is open, a bronze plaque will be in place at the base of the tree to identify it as his last resting place.

After that, the five of us (parents, brother, girlfriend & I) returned home and got ready for our final weekend event: Jonathan was dropped off at the bus station to return to London and the rest of us went to the Sens game. The Senators were playing the defending Stanley Cup-winning Pittsburg Penguins, who took the Sens out 4-1. The score was not, we think, an accurate reflection of the game, which was actually reasonably well-balanced.

And that, as we say, was that. One could hardly ask for a better Thanksgiving weekend.

Have You Seen This Hoax?

2009-10-08T17:27:13Z

So I log into Facebook at the start of lunch and discover an old school chum has posted this:

AMBER ALERT IN OSHAWA, ONTARIO>>>3 year old girl TAKEN BY MAN DRIVING NEWER SILVER TRUCK. ONTARIO PLATES 72B 381. If all of you reading my status would you copy and Paste... this Amber Alert in...to your status .It could potentially save a little girl's life... PASS THIS ALONG

Initially, I think to adapt this to post in my own status.

Then I decide to link to an amber alert website. So I search for one on Google that supports Ontario. And lo and behold I find this:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2009/02/10/fake-amber-alert-spreads-far-and-wide-and-fast-via-sms-twitter.htm

It turns out that a similar message, about a 3-year old abducted girl with the exact same plate #s, has been circulating across North America since February. Almost every state in the US has been affected and at least two Canadian Provinces.

The two websites I found that actively post currently-active amber alerts are codeamber.org and the (US) National Centre for Missing Children. I am not certain if either posts Canadian alerts; I could not find any Canadian-focused sites that similarly posted real-time amber alerts.

In any case, this particular message turned out to be a hoax.

Moral of the story: whenever you get messages from others asking you to pass on information of this nature, be sure to check first with the appropriate authority and/or confirm if it is a hoax or not. Passing it on could lead to people wasting police time and resources.

99 More Beers on the Wall

2009-10-07T19:50:55Z

Another random thought sort of post.

This is a 'version' of this song I saw while on vacation in August:

99 bottles of beer on the wall
99 bottles of beer
Take one down
It's mine, dammit
I'm not sharing
Go get your own
98 bottles of beer on the wall

(Random Thought) If I Ever Had Time...

2009-10-07T18:01:58Z

I would post on this blog an historical dissertation on the Second World War, probably split into parts for ease of reference.

The subject would be my assertion that the constellation of countries aligned around Nazi Germany (a coalition often called the Axis based on a speech by Mussolini) and their rather remote 'ally' Japan had approximately no chance of actually winning the war in the aftermath of the fall of France: indeed, I would contend that the only 'major power' enemy Germany had the ability to defeat outright was France.

This conclusion is hardly novel: Winston Churchill was certain of victory as early as the attack on Pearl Harbour and the United States' entry into the war (although his certainty would be shaken during the next half-year).

Anyway, if I ever get a few spare hours to do some reading & research and writing, I would write the above.

A Programmer's Ditty

2009-10-05T15:55:25Z

I saw this alteration of the '99 beers on the wall' song today and felt it is worth sharing:

99 little bugs in the code
99 bugs in the code
Fix one bug
Compile it again
101 little bugs in the code

Seasonal Flu Vaccine Limited/Late Delivery For This?

2009-09-30T16:56:52Z

This story comes from BC via the Science-Based Medicine blog.

So for me, the big question is: why is BC public health policy being affected by a study that is neither published nor - and this is very key for genuine scientific studies - peer-reviewed?

Other questions follow:

- Will Ontario or Quebec follow suit? Links in the comments of SBM suggest so.

- What, exactly, does 2 times more likely to get H1N1 mean? It is a big proportional increase, but the absolute increase might be negligible or within tolerable limits. If my baseline chance is anything less than a 10% probability to get H1N1 this fall (if I didn't get it already this spring/summer) then I can't see any benefit holding off getting a seasonal flu vaccine as the absolute probability of contracting H1N1 is still reasonably low.

On the other hand, the Star article points out that southern hemisphere countries, which just finished their winter (and hence primary flu season) found that the main flu strain circulating was the H1N1 flu. So it is reasonable to believe that this same phenomenon will take place now that winter is on the way here.

Ontario's plan is to inoculate people aged 65+ against seasonal flu now (since they have past exposure to H1N1 and are most vulnerable to seasonal flu), then distribute H1N1 vaccine universally, and finally distribute seasonal flu vaccine for the rest of us.

I have not usually been good about getting vaccinated. Since I am active in the Anglican Church, which has a lot of old people, I should be. This year since I am in the at-risk population for H1N1, I should get that vaccine, too (the H1N1 strain was responsible for the "Spanish" flu of 1918-1919 which mostly killed young adults in contrast to normal flu which kills the very young and the very old).

All that said, I am a bit concerned that public health policy is apparently being made based on unconfirmed studies before they have been peer-reviewed. After all, the MMR vaccine scare (which launched the contemporary anti-vaccine movement) was based on what turned out to be a bogus study.