alexadams

I’ve moved my blog to Wordpress because Livejournal has unfortunately decided to insert ads everywhere.

You can find my new blog at http://axadams.wordpress.com.

Meanwhile this old blog contains:

- My last political rant before mercifully returning to travel

- Political rants 2009-10 (and Balloon Boy)

- “A Pleasant and Interesting Paradise of Play”: Japan 2008-09

- Colorado Rockies 2008

- Political rants 2007-2008 (with a little bit of sports & travel)

- “Siam 2547″: Thailand-Laos 2004

Canadians have chosen a government that puts business first. Citizenship is apparently too burdensome and expensive; we would rather leave public matters in the hands of private managers and look after our own households first, expressing our freedom through our choice of shopping. To be fair, only 40% of the Canadians who voted voted this way, which leaves blame in the split opposition. Every player of a three-player strategy game knows to let the other two destroy each other. There are endless reasons why the centrists and socialists should never join forces, but there's one good reason why they should: to actually win an election.

Other factors in the result: the winning party's inherently better PR, made easier by the favour of most of the country's media oligopoly (as they are, after all, good for business); the ease of promoting policies of "getting tough" on "the bad guys" and putting money directly in pockets through tax breaks, rather than the nondescript blandness of moderate administration; the winning party's association with ascendant western Canada and the losing party's association with despised and declining central Canada; the winning party's freshness as a reform movement, and the losing party's old-guard attitude of entitlement to power; the strength of "conservative" as a brand, especially in rural Canada, despite the disconnect between that word and their actual policy; and the association of that word with wise fiscal management, despite the party's erratic spendthrift incompetence in government.

-BP's casual "Oops, still trying, take it easy" (really no big deal because we're still making money) attitude to the oil gusher
-the Israeli state's callous willingness to starve out Gaza (because some of you are terrorists, none of you can have concrete to build infrastructure such as sewage plants because someone might use it to build fortifications)
-the Canadian government's indifference to human legal rights (child soldier Khadr deserved Guantanamo and now deserves US prison) yet crusading fervor to protect banks from taxes ($1 billion each per quarter in profits is too fragile a margin to be threatened by more tax)
-the police-state intensity with which downtown Toronto will be quarantined off from the public for the G20 meet (the public is locked out of our own downtown core using measures like sound cannons because some of us might be terrorists)

Once again, the war on terrorism reveals that its only successful target is liberty. A British MP has been denied entry to Canada on the grounds that he is a supporter of terrorism. George Galloway had apparently given money to Hamas or a related organization, as part of the recovery efforts in Gaza after the most recent Israeli smash-up (since Hamas is both a terrorist organization and the elected government of Gaza).

You may remember him from his dramatic appearance at the US Senate five years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyyGoPerzWc

He also handled O'Reilly well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgZbzfP7JIs

As a real threat, terrorism doesn't even rise above the background noise of standard murder rates. Mundane traffic mishaps produce far more random horror. But the idea that a conspiracy of mad bombers could at any moment strike became such a bogeyman after 9/11 - and it hasn't abated since - that it has inspired a disgraceful overreaction, a reflex to surrender freedom and dignity for a chance to cower behind the shield of armed authority. There is a common sentiment that either certain classes of criminal do not "deserve" basic human rights, or that their rights are worth abandoning in the interest of public safety. This shabby underappreciation of the fragile nature of our own freedom can be explained either by ignorance or cowardice. Either we don't understand what denying a few men their rights means for all of us, or we are willing to do it anyway in the hope of possibly preventing "the next attack".

Terrorism has indeed been successful, in the sense of generating terror, but we did most of the work ourselves in our reaction. After the long struggle of previous generations to protect individual freedom against the excesses of "well-meaning" authority, it is again entirely possible for any free citizen to be imprisoned indefinitely and treated to "enhanced interrogation techniques" by agents of his own government, with no explanation necessary as to why he is suspected or even what he is suspected of - this secrecy being, of course, "in the interest of national security". This ongoing, publicly sanctioned brutality is more frightening, and far more poisonous to liberty, than the occasional acts of mass murder which occasioned it.

By what principle should Iran not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, while certain other nations are allowed to continue developing such weapons? In 1968 most countries agreed that the US, USSR, UK, France and China, which already had nukes, would be allowed to keep them, and nobody else would be allowed to get them (although the US shares them with its NATO allies, nominally under US control). India, Pakistan and Israel didn't sign on. They made the same argument: on what grounds does one state and not another have the right to possess nuclear weapons? In the 1968 treaty the nuclear club nations also committed to gradually disarming themselves. But this seems to be easily forgotten when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is held up as an ethical standard which only bad guy countries like Libya, North Korea and Iran are breaking.

Why shouldn't people treat public property, in joint ownership by everyone, with the same intensity as private property? Any slight disturbance to private property is fiercely protected, but people are not so resolved about shared property such as our waterways and lakes. If a neighbour tossed a piece of garbage over his fence into my backyard, it would be an outrage, but industrial dumping into our water system inspires only a feeble rise. The public should be in a position to demand payment in exchange for damage to its property, or even to forbid some of its excesses. But for the most part, the appetite isn't there. We don't want to place restrictions on industry because they make us money and we don't want to scare them away. Instead we offer them everything we can to make them comfortable, inviting them to plunder our shared property as long as the money continues to flow.

What level of outrage is necessary for our public will to grow stronger than the will inspired by many, many, many dollars?

This is one of the more entertaining hoaxes to come down recently.

First, on Thursday, an experimental helium balloon takes off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP_Cjx2sFzM

Oops, they forgot to tether it! It was supposed to stop at about 20 feet high, but instead floats off and begins drifting at high speed.

Then their son Bradford tells them that little 6 year-old Falcon was actually playing in the box at the bottom of the balloon! They search around the house, but can't find him anywhere. The Balloon Boy saga begins. Live news coverage shows the flying saucer as it speeds across the Colorado sky.

The balloon eventually lands in a field, and no boy is inside. He is later found in a box in the attic, where he had been hiding the whole time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6QRC4Hqdzs

The family talks to the cameras outside their home, the Balloon Boy safe and sound. Let everyone enjoy the miracle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5q3tjZAwFQ

The family enjoys its celebrity tour, and faces the guileless questioning of Wolf Blitzer doing Larry King Live. Wolf innocently asks for clarification of an apparent inconsistency: why the boy didn't come out of hiding after hearing his name repeatedly called. The boy's answer is the real, priceless "oops" moment that brings everything down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI6UONWCq7A

Later, after Wolf has time to process what's going on, he comes back with his follow-up, which daddy limply tries to explain. His defeat is evident, and when he can't come up with anything, he goes on the attack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm8kVXDzTEY

It's worth noting that the parents had met in a Hollywood acting school. They put on a good show, but the lying ability of a 6 year-old failed them. I imagine they blame everything on Falcon for his slip of the tongue. However, they should consider the way they cued him. Because daddy was relaying Wolf's questions, he had the ability to rephrase and inflect them in a way that gets the desired answer. But when daddy asks straightforwardly "Why didn't you come out?", with the tone of an honest parent-to-child question, he is cuing an honest answer. "I was scared I would get in trouble" would have been the easy out, but the child, lacking an overall understanding of the lie, cannot check his instinctive honesty.

By the weekend, they had fallen to "Put your questions in this box."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjivOVXHVso

I haven't felt like writing much in the blog lately. As far as travel writing goes, I've been busy working at several language schools. As far as political writing goes, I'm working on moderating my anger, as it doesn't make for very useful words.

In early May, a series of holidays within a few days leads to the collective title "Golden Week". This is a convenient time for everyone to travel, with train and hotel prices adjusted accordingly. This year, I took a high-speed train to the western end of Japan.


The shinkansen, Japan's high-speed trains. There's nothing so special about these trains, although their nose shape is distinctive. On the left, here at Tokyo terminal, is an older model, and on the right an aerodynamically exaggerated newer model. What makes the shinkansen special is the tracks. They are so straight and even that, looking outside at the adjacent set, one almost appears to be standing still, with a blur of grass and concrete ties but two absolutely steady lines of steel.


Mount Fuji, a little west of Tokyo, seen from the shinkansen window. Rising to a great height seemingly out of nowhere, it well deserves its mythic reputation.

I don't like political parties, consensus-based thinking, or following a leader. But I have decided that I can best do my job as a citizen by joining the Liberal Party of Canada. This is because they are the only alternative government to the Conservative Party of Canada. The CPC is in principle indifferent or opposed to most of the values I hold to, and is in practice incompetent to govern. All appropriate measures should be taken to replace them with a more mildly offensive band of jackasses, the Big Red Machine.