...and despotism in America.
Currently reading de Tocqueville's Democracy in America.
We will take care of you...
2010-11-30
The Man Who Somehow Defied Death
Hard to explain the story of Phineas Gage. So, just read it. It truly is amazing.
Man, I got a hockey stick to the side of my head and thought it was brutal, imagine this dude with a metal pole through his skull.
Man, I got a hockey stick to the side of my head and thought it was brutal, imagine this dude with a metal pole through his skull.
Law & Order Los Angeles
I don't know why but all I do know the binders the cops carry isn't working for me. And maybe one of them should lose the moustache.
Let The Man Speak
I love this guy.
Interesting exchange. On the surface, this woman seems to be abusing her power for no good reason.
Anyone can add to this? Punching her name up I found this.
Interesting exchange. On the surface, this woman seems to be abusing her power for no good reason.
Anyone can add to this? Punching her name up I found this.
Doctor Bribes
Jeez, no kidding. Doctors taking bribes doesn't surprise me. The wait times are way too long. I'm pretty sure this has been going on for a while. The system is just too slow to respond to medical needs.
I love it. The public health system is cracked but they want to build a super hospital in Quebec.
I see a super mess coming.
We have such a fantastic track record of building big things within budget.
I love it. The public health system is cracked but they want to build a super hospital in Quebec.
I see a super mess coming.
We have such a fantastic track record of building big things within budget.
Wikileaks Canada
Well, is this surprising to anyone?
Love this quote:
My friend works for the RCMP and he told me CSIS relies on intelligence from other countries to protect our own borders.
Love this quote:
"Judd stated that the video "would no doubt trigger knee-jerk anti-Americanism" and "paroxysms of moral outrage, a Canadian specialty," the cable said."Sounds about to right.
My friend works for the RCMP and he told me CSIS relies on intelligence from other countries to protect our own borders.
Latimer Free
The Richard Latimer story really was unique when it first broke. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it was one of the first mercy killing case that captivated a nation and brought awareness to an entire continent about the subject.
What is most interesting is how the majority of Canadians clearly sided with Latimer and against the justice system - myself included. Although I full recognize how difficult it must have been for the legal system to deal with such a case.
Latimer has been granted full parole.
What is most interesting is how the majority of Canadians clearly sided with Latimer and against the justice system - myself included. Although I full recognize how difficult it must have been for the legal system to deal with such a case.
Latimer has been granted full parole.
2010-11-29
Angel Investors
Some key points I agree with mentioned in the video:
1) Don't be afraid to take and existing idea and making it your own. You don't have to necessarily have a unique idea to run a business. Just a unique approach.
2) It's important to have support; people you can talk to about the challenges you face. You need to talk out your stress. It's not easy to take on a new business.
3) Surround yourself with key people who know the business and can offer important ideas and perspectives.
4) It's all about growth. Not just financial but personal as well.
In my case, I am lucky. I can talk to people and if I really, really need to, I can probably have them be my angel investors. I'm in a critical stage myself as I see my funds dwindling and debts mount as approach my opening date. Looking for other sources of cash is part of the game. You WILL make mistakes and they WILL cost you money. It takes a person who can keep their eye on the big picture in order to not buckle under that kind of pressure. I must admit, I'm being tested every single day.
I've also surrounded myself with a "gold standard" personel that I know will benefit my day care. I will pay more up front, but it's a cost-benefit decision that will in the long-run keep my business viable and probably give me a special edge over competitors. From what I hear, some private day cares aren't always ready to pay for real talent. I am.
Last, capital for investment is always available. They're called 'angel investors.' They're called such because they're all around us even though we may not necessarily see them. Like how we talk to angels, you have to seek them and suddenly they appear. I'm telling you, they exist.
If you have a sound idea that's well thought out, all that's left to do is to self yourself. I don't think people truly grasp this basic but powerful concept. In the end, people invest in people.
So why did I put myself through all this? Because, at this stage in my life, I know for a fact in my heart of hearts, I wasn't meant for anything else but be an entrepreneur. Unless I found a small business in which I could act as a personal liason to the owner, I don't cope within a corporate structure nor was I made for a job in the civil service.
I always knew this to be the case and working in a corporate environment for 10 years only solidified it.
As I've said in the past, it's not for the feint hearted and you better damn well make sure your spouse is ready for the volatility.
Hope this post helps others thinking of entering this realm or already in it.
National Governments And Wikileaks
How are national governments going to react to Wikileaks and its release of thousand of classified documents? The U.S. Attorney-General has already hinted that they may prosecute those found guilty of the leaks.
Would They Have A Parade For The Man Who Discovered Fire Or The Wheel?
Back when I was in junior high (cue 'Glory Days' now!) the Montreal Canadiens won the Stanley Cup. It was 1986 and nothing was gonna stop a few of us from grabbing the bus into the city to witness the parade first hand despite warnings from the school that if we juked there would be consequences. Calculating that the odds of being tortured or killed were remote we took our chances and skipped school (cue 'Another brick in the wall' now!)
The following day (I can't remember if we told our parents) the principal, who happened to really be the gym teacher and was temporarily heading the school (he was probably the most fit guy I've ever seen including up to this day), asked us if it was worth it. We answered in the affirmative. Stupid question to ask teenagers, right? He then proceeded to hand out our punishment: A ten-page essay why we thought it was worth it. 'Til this day I'm not convinced he believed in giving it out in the first place - but he had to do something I reckon. Wouldn't want to upset, whoever the fuck would have been angry.
Point is, the Habs were our world. It's hard to explain the cultural significance of the Montreal Canadiens. It's not unlike the Green Bay Packers and New York Yankees but I'm willing to go as far as say maybe even more psychotic. Hockey in general here has confirmed Canadians are born with half their brains filled with a puck.
We just had to go.
Fast forward a couple of decades and the Habs mean little, if anything to me. Sorta like how Mickey and Mantle and the New York Yankees went from icons to meaningless figures to 'C' in A Bronx Tale.
My sports interest is -by and large - emotionally detached now. I read about the history of sports. I'm less interested in the debates about who should be playing with who (mind-numbingly pointless) and more about sports in a greater context in terms of its role in society and all that.
By the way, as for others, I don't begrudge die hards or fans of teams. Far from it. When I went to see the Milan derby between Inter Milan and AC Milan it was something to witness in the flesh the dedication of the tifosi to their teams.
With this in mind, I came across coverage of the San Francisco Giants parade and I immediately wondered, man, would we do this for the person or persons who would find a cure for, say, lung cancer?
Would we take to the streets celebrating a great piece of literature or the discovery of life on Mars?
The answer is no of course.
One of the reporters said, "moment in history they want to be a part of." Yeah, it is a historical moment but it's amazing to see how much of an impact sports retains in society.
2010-11-27
End Of The Pipeline
My wife had some of her long-time friends over for dinner (a dinner I cooked) and one of them works in upper-management for a major pharmaceutical.
We got to talking about the anti-business atmosphere these days (and don't tell me we're not. I see it with my own eyes everyday) and its impact on big pharma specifically. She told me something very interesting...and disturbing. According to her, because regulation on pharma has become so stacked against them major companies have ceased (or are in the process of no longer) developing new products.
They're reached the point where they feel it's no longer worth it. They're getting hit with too many lawsuits despite following the law and the FDA is making it harder for them to bring their products to market:
No wonder pharma stocks have plummeted (they were around 35$ per share during my time in investments) and mergers are now common.
If accurate, how can they ensure the long-term growth of their companies if they have nothing in the pipelines?
Surely the ramifications can be massive.
For example, she said they - her company - were very close to finding a drug for Alzeimers. They stopped development. There will be no cure for Alzeimers in our lifetime she said.
Ouch.
She also mentioned how it's been forecasted that new diseases will come up with no cures likely to fend them off. Keep in mind, it takes anywhere between 10-15 years for a drug to pass through its clinical trials. That's after they've done years of research.
We should always keep in mind the unseen consequences of our position.
We got to talking about the anti-business atmosphere these days (and don't tell me we're not. I see it with my own eyes everyday) and its impact on big pharma specifically. She told me something very interesting...and disturbing. According to her, because regulation on pharma has become so stacked against them major companies have ceased (or are in the process of no longer) developing new products.
They're reached the point where they feel it's no longer worth it. They're getting hit with too many lawsuits despite following the law and the FDA is making it harder for them to bring their products to market:
"We recommend avoiding names that offer little growth or opportunity for a take-out. These include companies which are developing drugs that are likely to face regulatory hurdles. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been exercising more caution before granting approval to new products and several candidates have been facing delays in receiving final approval."They will continue to maintain existing medicines but as far as the pipelines go (the lifeline to not only their business but our lives), nothing.
No wonder pharma stocks have plummeted (they were around 35$ per share during my time in investments) and mergers are now common.
If accurate, how can they ensure the long-term growth of their companies if they have nothing in the pipelines?
Surely the ramifications can be massive.
For example, she said they - her company - were very close to finding a drug for Alzeimers. They stopped development. There will be no cure for Alzeimers in our lifetime she said.
Ouch.
She also mentioned how it's been forecasted that new diseases will come up with no cures likely to fend them off. Keep in mind, it takes anywhere between 10-15 years for a drug to pass through its clinical trials. That's after they've done years of research.
We should always keep in mind the unseen consequences of our position.
2010-11-25
UK Spending Graph
I've been wanting to put together a chart or graph on how Canada spends its money because nothing beats a good visual while you eat cherries. I looked around for one but we Canadians aren't overly enthusiastic at introspective accounts of our bad habits. But I did come across a British one. You can view and adjust the size here on PDF.
It's a great way to grab a pen and say, "I don't need this, we can cut that" and so on.
Mind you, that's not always easy to do. Recall that we consider a CEO a genius for increasing EPS (earnings per share) by essentially cutting staff. That's not a solution. But it does get them on the cover on some fancy shmancy magazine.
It's a great way to grab a pen and say, "I don't need this, we can cut that" and so on.
Mind you, that's not always easy to do. Recall that we consider a CEO a genius for increasing EPS (earnings per share) by essentially cutting staff. That's not a solution. But it does get them on the cover on some fancy shmancy magazine.
2010-11-24
2010-11-23
Total Human War Deaths
I have no idea how many wars and deaths have taken place in history but I'm pretty sure it's not in the billions. Low hundreds of millions (not including the Plagues) and that figure is boosted thanks to the 50 million dead during WWII.
Blast From The Past
In an accounting class I took in university circa 1993 (yes, my electives tended to be outside the liberal arts umbrella. I did that on purpose) the professor recommended that everyone learn Japanese because they were going to replace the Americans as the greatest business nation on earth.
I took a gamble and ignored her advice.
I took a gamble and ignored her advice.
Death By Disease
In case you haven't noticed, I'm taking issue with a few things that have bothered me over the years. Today, I want to talk about what has been charged by some historians as the American genocide of the Native Americans in North America.
If we're still debating if Stalin committed genocide imagine how much further down the probability scale it is for the United States.
The truth is there was no genocide - at least the way I've come to understand it - just like the Wild West wasn't all that wild. It was rowdy but not like in the popular imagination.
There were displacements and there were wars and indeed it did unfortubately hasten the fall of many Native American tribes and societies. It wasn't fair but history is history. It's one of those unfortunate moments that has always occured in world history. Mass migration and invasion is stuff of human legend. Now, how they were treated after the White man took over once and for all is another matter altogether and not exactly something we should be proud of especially considering those who served in the U.S. military.
Canada's own record on Native affairs is cause for shame as well.
Still. The one thing that's always left me uneasy was how "violent" Europeans were against the "pacifist" and "nature loving" Indians. It overlooks, if not outright dismisses, the reality that Native tribes were in a constant state of warfare with one another and caused more war deaths between them than the Europeans inflicted. Instead, some historians or artists or activists paint them as eternally peaceful people of the Buffalo. There were moments of atrocity and massacres. This can't be refuted but it doesn't amount to mass scale genocide.
Lemme tell ya, the Apache (and the Sioux) were one wickedly fierce warrior society. They learned to be that way before the arrival of the Eurocrashers.
What decimated the Natives was, as we all know, disease. But disease is not murder. I agree with this person's logic: Even if the Europeans came with the best of intentions, disease would have still wiped out the Natives. It was a Bubonic plague for the New World. Speaking of which, I've read over the years people assert, not all that wrongly, should Europeans charge India or Mongolia with genocide for the Black Death? I mean, what, 65% of its total population fell to its demise?
The case, to me anyway, for a Western (or American) genocide of Natives was always weak (if not groundless) and it remains so.
***
That all being said, I appreciate the efforts being made to connect to First Nations. We're on the same land now and it's only fitting First Nations is integrated into our collective experience. I thoroughly enjoy learning more and more about them - something we don't do enough of. Indeed, we can learn quite a bit from their wisdom and experiences. We always did mind you.
If we're still debating if Stalin committed genocide imagine how much further down the probability scale it is for the United States.
The truth is there was no genocide - at least the way I've come to understand it - just like the Wild West wasn't all that wild. It was rowdy but not like in the popular imagination.
There were displacements and there were wars and indeed it did unfortubately hasten the fall of many Native American tribes and societies. It wasn't fair but history is history. It's one of those unfortunate moments that has always occured in world history. Mass migration and invasion is stuff of human legend. Now, how they were treated after the White man took over once and for all is another matter altogether and not exactly something we should be proud of especially considering those who served in the U.S. military.
Canada's own record on Native affairs is cause for shame as well.
Still. The one thing that's always left me uneasy was how "violent" Europeans were against the "pacifist" and "nature loving" Indians. It overlooks, if not outright dismisses, the reality that Native tribes were in a constant state of warfare with one another and caused more war deaths between them than the Europeans inflicted. Instead, some historians or artists or activists paint them as eternally peaceful people of the Buffalo. There were moments of atrocity and massacres. This can't be refuted but it doesn't amount to mass scale genocide.
Lemme tell ya, the Apache (and the Sioux) were one wickedly fierce warrior society. They learned to be that way before the arrival of the Eurocrashers.
What decimated the Natives was, as we all know, disease. But disease is not murder. I agree with this person's logic: Even if the Europeans came with the best of intentions, disease would have still wiped out the Natives. It was a Bubonic plague for the New World. Speaking of which, I've read over the years people assert, not all that wrongly, should Europeans charge India or Mongolia with genocide for the Black Death? I mean, what, 65% of its total population fell to its demise?
The case, to me anyway, for a Western (or American) genocide of Natives was always weak (if not groundless) and it remains so.
***
That all being said, I appreciate the efforts being made to connect to First Nations. We're on the same land now and it's only fitting First Nations is integrated into our collective experience. I thoroughly enjoy learning more and more about them - something we don't do enough of. Indeed, we can learn quite a bit from their wisdom and experiences. We always did mind you.
If These Walls Could Talk
Last year we had to strip one of my father's buildings straight down to the its original wall the tenet did so much damage. What I saw were generations of ideas and attitudes strip away before me. You can tell what people must have thought just by observing the type of brick used and how it was put together. The building was built in 1929 and it wasn't exactly did with perfection in mind, but still, it was solid. Then, as time went on, owners changed hands, new needs necessitated cosmetic adjustments.
Walls were added, thus adding more bricks only this time it was the 1940s, and then the 1960s (my father bought it in 1966), right up until 2009.
While it cost money to renovate it was a chance to reinvigorate the place. To add better materials up to new modern standards. It's always beneficial to rethink and revisit our original layouts.
Same with the building I'm renting for the day care. Where it needs to be done, I'm making sure we bring everything up to speed. It's putting me way over budget but the cost of not doing it may be worse in the long-run for me. Originally built in 1962, the place was in need of some real upgrading.
Which made me think. It's a neat analogy to use about our economic mindset. The current one in place, which I'm not sure what it is but let's just say it's a "theory-based, tax and spend oriented for the collective good' type of economy predicated on unprovable notions of being able to predict and manage risk.
I'm no expert or scholar so I can't put it into academic terms but, what's the term I looking for, this position has gotten really, really stale. Like the walls in my buildings.
Now. The option is to merely build upon the wall with the same attitude and materials so as to make the building "functional" to rent out but that risk there is you will always have the headache of tearing down walls. Fix and destroy. It's a band aid approach. Sort of like regulation in the markets.
Or, you can take a deep breath, shut down for a few months and redesign the sucker to ensure it's as good as new with better materials thus saving you a migraine down the road. Of course when you srip out a part of an extension it gets scarier to look at but it must be done.
It's a choice.
To me, our economic "experts" keep betting on the former strategy thinking it worked once it should always work. Not sure about that logic. Conversely, what didn't work in the past doesn't mean it has no merit. Maybe it does or did but clearly things are a tad askew and the solutions being offered are not solutions but a reverting to a comfort zone we think we know.
What's better to have a series of small mangeable problems where you can solve as you go or having several massive problems that engulf you to the point of near paralysis?
I know I prefer the former. In order to get there though we need to work backwards from where we are. There's little logic in "bailing out" companies based on the reasons given. Remove the safety net and see how risk assessment changes. Nor is bigger better and top-down edicts from clueless politicians are equally as bad. You can't direct things that way and expect to be efficient.
That's what I've learned from two walls (who spoke with a Gaspesienne accent for some reason) in two buildings in two different parts of the city from two different eras.
Your move.
Our move.
And I just got a case of deja-vu as I write this. Seriously.
Walls were added, thus adding more bricks only this time it was the 1940s, and then the 1960s (my father bought it in 1966), right up until 2009.
While it cost money to renovate it was a chance to reinvigorate the place. To add better materials up to new modern standards. It's always beneficial to rethink and revisit our original layouts.
Same with the building I'm renting for the day care. Where it needs to be done, I'm making sure we bring everything up to speed. It's putting me way over budget but the cost of not doing it may be worse in the long-run for me. Originally built in 1962, the place was in need of some real upgrading.
Which made me think. It's a neat analogy to use about our economic mindset. The current one in place, which I'm not sure what it is but let's just say it's a "theory-based, tax and spend oriented for the collective good' type of economy predicated on unprovable notions of being able to predict and manage risk.
I'm no expert or scholar so I can't put it into academic terms but, what's the term I looking for, this position has gotten really, really stale. Like the walls in my buildings.
Now. The option is to merely build upon the wall with the same attitude and materials so as to make the building "functional" to rent out but that risk there is you will always have the headache of tearing down walls. Fix and destroy. It's a band aid approach. Sort of like regulation in the markets.
Or, you can take a deep breath, shut down for a few months and redesign the sucker to ensure it's as good as new with better materials thus saving you a migraine down the road. Of course when you srip out a part of an extension it gets scarier to look at but it must be done.
It's a choice.
To me, our economic "experts" keep betting on the former strategy thinking it worked once it should always work. Not sure about that logic. Conversely, what didn't work in the past doesn't mean it has no merit. Maybe it does or did but clearly things are a tad askew and the solutions being offered are not solutions but a reverting to a comfort zone we think we know.
What's better to have a series of small mangeable problems where you can solve as you go or having several massive problems that engulf you to the point of near paralysis?
I know I prefer the former. In order to get there though we need to work backwards from where we are. There's little logic in "bailing out" companies based on the reasons given. Remove the safety net and see how risk assessment changes. Nor is bigger better and top-down edicts from clueless politicians are equally as bad. You can't direct things that way and expect to be efficient.
That's what I've learned from two walls (who spoke with a Gaspesienne accent for some reason) in two buildings in two different parts of the city from two different eras.
Your move.
Our move.
And I just got a case of deja-vu as I write this. Seriously.
Copyright Laws
Interesting take on copyright laws over at Reason.
Quentin Tarantino is the perfect artist to use as an example of what it must have been like way back when when nutcase geniuses hammered on a piano or wrote books as if they had way too much time on their hands (I mean, I could write a book if I wasn't hooked on Chuck). Tarantino is the master of borrowing and incorporating into an American sensibility all the film ideas and influences found around the world. He brings various techniques into one film and voila! Instant sensation.
By the way, when I used to take art classes, everything was rules based. Same with writing an essay or novel. Rules, rules, rules. You "must" introduce a character early, or you "must" follow a plot pattern or whatever. Sez who?
I always struggled with that. I used to mix things up a lot and while teachers liked it, they weren't sure about it either.
Tarantino's Italian-Irish-Cherokee heritage also points to something else. What made, in part, Italy a dominant (and once that waned a major center) cultural and scientific center for a good long period, say, 1100s to 1500s was its maritime advantages. Venetian and Genoese merchants were constantly trading with the East. This meant a constant energetic flow of exchanging ideas. Needless to say, it had major implications for the rest of Italy and Europe. As gatekeepers to the world's goods and services, they imported a wide variety of stuffs at which point the Italians borrowed and then (some say) perfected and mastered in la manniere Italienne.
I always say a Ferrari is the aggregate work of many cultures that pass through the veins of the Italians.
The article points to Bach but he's hardly alone in behaving the way he did. History likes to settle on "one" person as if they "invented" something out of a vacuum. That's not usually the case. How much of a difference in quality was there really between Marlowe and Shakespeare? Why did the Wonder Years work, but Freaks and Geeks didn't?
Anyway. It was the same for Britain and its empire in all it's "white man's burden" albatross.
What do you think the Americans do? Yes, they're innovative and dynamic but they too are merely building on the legacy left behind by many great civilizations.
Copyright that.
Quentin Tarantino is the perfect artist to use as an example of what it must have been like way back when when nutcase geniuses hammered on a piano or wrote books as if they had way too much time on their hands (I mean, I could write a book if I wasn't hooked on Chuck). Tarantino is the master of borrowing and incorporating into an American sensibility all the film ideas and influences found around the world. He brings various techniques into one film and voila! Instant sensation.
By the way, when I used to take art classes, everything was rules based. Same with writing an essay or novel. Rules, rules, rules. You "must" introduce a character early, or you "must" follow a plot pattern or whatever. Sez who?
I always struggled with that. I used to mix things up a lot and while teachers liked it, they weren't sure about it either.
Tarantino's Italian-Irish-Cherokee heritage also points to something else. What made, in part, Italy a dominant (and once that waned a major center) cultural and scientific center for a good long period, say, 1100s to 1500s was its maritime advantages. Venetian and Genoese merchants were constantly trading with the East. This meant a constant energetic flow of exchanging ideas. Needless to say, it had major implications for the rest of Italy and Europe. As gatekeepers to the world's goods and services, they imported a wide variety of stuffs at which point the Italians borrowed and then (some say) perfected and mastered in la manniere Italienne.
I always say a Ferrari is the aggregate work of many cultures that pass through the veins of the Italians.
The article points to Bach but he's hardly alone in behaving the way he did. History likes to settle on "one" person as if they "invented" something out of a vacuum. That's not usually the case. How much of a difference in quality was there really between Marlowe and Shakespeare? Why did the Wonder Years work, but Freaks and Geeks didn't?
Anyway. It was the same for Britain and its empire in all it's "white man's burden" albatross.
What do you think the Americans do? Yes, they're innovative and dynamic but they too are merely building on the legacy left behind by many great civilizations.
Copyright that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)