In the meantime, I’ve been puzzling over the fact that YouTube lets me watch some videos on a my computer, but not on my Android tablet. “Content provider has not made this video not available on mobile” it will say.

So it’s something about copyright protection, but what, exactly? While I think regional bans are fairly stupid, I at least somewhat understand “the logic” of them. That the copyright may only be valid in a certain area, not globally. Someone else might own it somewhere else. So only people in your area can watch certain.

But that I can watch a video on my computer, but not on my tablet three feet away? Huh? What are thinking I’m going to do with it on my tablet that’s so terrible? (Because honestly, there seems lots more PC than Android software for downloading and manipulating YouTube videos, if that’s where we’re going with this.) And if that’s I can travel around with my tablet… Well, news flash, I can also do that with a laptop.

But with a little Googling, I found out the why. This happens a lot on music videos, which happens to be the main type of video I watch, so I see that message a lot.

It’s because they don’t want me using YouTube as a music player on my tablet (or on a phone, of course–the main target of this particular restriction).

So as is often the case with these copyright things, it’s a stupid reason. And also as usual, pretty easy to work around.

1. Use the Opera browser.
2. Set the Opera user agent setting to desktop instead of tablet mode.
3. Go to YouTube and watch video.

Works a treat. Thank you and good night and stop SOPA.

(Well, all except Ron Paul, whom Rolling Stone ignores, as seems to be typical media approach to Ron Paul. Though I’m not sure what he is promising is any better, it seems worth noting that it is different, particularly in areas such as the military. The article also apparently pre-dates Herman Cain’s withdrawal from the race.)

But the point is that one of these people could actually be President of the United States! And this what they say they would do:

• Promote dirty energy jobs—addressing unemployment by increasing carbon emissions.
• Reduce environmental regulations, such as by limiting or even getting rid of the EPA.
• Unleash Wall Street by eliminating safeguards that protect consumers and workers.
• Destroy the safety net: Cancel health care reform, privatize Medicare, and privatize Social Security for young workers.
• Wreck the economy through a brutal austerity plan, likely to bring on a new recession.
• Increase military spending and find new wars to fight.
• Cut taxes on the rich—reduce corporate, estate, and investment taxes.
• Attack abortion rights. (As an aside: Rick Santorum also doesn’t much care for birth control.)
• Harsh crackdowns on illegal immigrants.

As Canadians, not all of this would affect us. But if the US economy goes down, so does Canada’s. If they pollute the air and atmosphere, we all suffer the consequences. If they start a new war, our soldiers could be drawn on.

While Obama has certainly been a disappointment as President, at least he’s not, as the headline says, a crackpot. Let us hope that this article is correct that this Republican agenda is too radical to actually be electable.

A few weeks ago, voters in Irwin Cotler’s Montreal riding received phone calls on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada telling them, incorrectly, that Cotler was planning to resign, so who would they support in a byelection.

It turns out that the firm behind the calls, Campaign Research, Inc. also did a lot of work for the Conservatives in the last election. In fact, principle partner Nick Kouvalis described his firm’s mandate thusly: “We’re in the business of getting Conservatives elected and ending Liberal careers.”

One of the Conservatives Nick Kouvalis helped elect was one Peter Braid, federal Conservative candidate for the riding of  Kitchener Waterloo. Kouvalis was Braid’s election day chair. Another member of that same firm, Aaron Lee-Wudrick, was Braid’s campaign manager. Per Wikileaks, the two have a history together: See Conservative Party strategy to take over student unions exposed.

During the last election campaign, on behalf of Peter Braid, Campaign Research Inc. spent over $19,000 on phone calls in the Kitchener-Waterloo riding. One of the highest totals in Canada.

Got it?

You know, I hear there might be a byelection soon in the riding of Kitchener Waterloo. Something about an MP resigning in disgrace?

(With much thanks to Creekside blog for helping me connect the dots: Campaign Research Con cats are out of the bag.)

UPDATE: Today in the Waterloo Region Record, a report that at least one of the calls in Kitchener Waterloo area, illegally claiming polling stations had changed was indeed from a number associated with the Conservative Party of Canada.

• Pushing ahead to pass the Wheat Board Bill despite the fact that it is illegal.
•  Not even trying to meet carbon emissions mandated by Kyoto, an international legally binding agreement that was also entered into Canadian law.
•  Pleading guilty to committing fraud in the election that first brought them to power.

Just sayin’.

Each time the tone seems to have reached bottom, down it goes again. When the House of Commons marked Remembrance Day, each party stood to say a few words honouring the dead, but MPs from the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois needed unanimous consent to speak because they are not officially recognized in the House of Commons. They didn’t get it because some Conservative MP, or MPs, objected. The next day, with the support of the NDP, they tried again. Again the Conservatives blocked them.

Blocked them. From saying a few words in honour of the dead. Why? Who knows? The Conservatives never bothered to explain this shameful deed.

From a very thoughtful article by Dan Gardner, The politics of ruthlessness. He is much more polite in his story than I am in my headline. Well worth reading. (But, I suggest, skip the Comments section…)

(Results that came up when typing “omnibus crime bill” into Google:

Omnibus crime bill sets stage for future mess

StarPhoenix – 2 days ago

Omnibus crime bill misses the mark‎ Toronto Star
Bar association blasts tough-on-crime bill‎ Vancouver Sun
Conservative crime bill a long-lasting mistake‎ Brandon Sun)

And also  the fact that they are being petulant, nasty jackasses in the House, instead of sitting back and basking in the fact that they can do anything they damn please for the next four years.

So when  I saw the story about the peaceful, unresisting UC Davis students being casually pepper-sprayed at point-blank range by a police officer, I initially saw this as just more nasty news.

It just reminded me of the excesses the Canadian police forces brought down during the G20 summit, and not even just against protestors—also against a lot of people who just happened to be there.

(The above is not a photo is not of Guantanamo. It’s a Toronto G20 temporary jail, clearly depicting the human rights violation of leaving people handcuffed once in a secure area. And 90% of these people never should been arrested at all…)

And nobody’s really been held to account for that.

But the UC Davis story seems to be going a little differently.

For one thing, if you watch the full 8 minute 30 second video (instead of just the 1 minute 30 second pepper spraying), you can’t help but be really impressed at how the students handled this.

First of all the students are not being threatening in any way; the police office is just being a dick. As if pepper spraying seated students at point blank in the face one time isn’t enough, he then does it again, and again.

The crowd responds: “Shame! Shame!”. And they begin to act and move together. And one point, they do seem to have the police officers surrounded. And then… They offer a “moment of peace.” “You can go. We won’t stop you. You can go. You can go.”

And the policemen do retreat.

It’s kind of cool, and nearly gives me hope.

And sure, there are a ton of YouTube trolls posting horrible comments, but the UC Davis University has also been flooded with complaints about the incident. The mainstream media is all over the story. The officer involved has already been identified and suspended (OK, with pay, but it’s a start).

And to those who think these kids don’t even know what they’re protesting about (“What do they want?”), note that these ones do have one really specific target: The university plan to raise tuition fees 80% next year (with no plan to improved the education quality by 80% in compensation). Source: Interview with a pepper-sprayed UC Davis student at BoingBoing.

Is this a turning point?

Now, though, I’m addicted.

I initially signed on based on a friend’s advice to do so just to get a good Twitter-name, even if I didn’t do much with it right away. Turned out she had a point; most variations of my name and my most commonly used web pseudonyms were already in use by others. But I did find an available combination.

Twitter has a bit of learning curve to it. I started by just following a small number of people and trying to figure it out from there. I soon learned that a lot of power is in the link; sure, you can’t say that much in 140 characters, but you can link to those details. (And to photos. And to videos.)

But when I’m say addicted, it’s not to tweeting itself, which I remain a little gun-shy about. (Apparently I have tweeted 28 times in total.) In fact, I’m still not completely clear on who sees what when it comes replies, direct replies, direct messages, retweets, private message… ? All in all, it’s easier to just listen, most of the time.

Currently I follow 59 accounts, some of whom haven’t tweeted in two years, some of whom tweet so frequently, I don’t know how they stay employed.

Among my favorites are the following.

@Elizabeth May:  A lot of the politicians I follow tweet mostly dull platitudes, toeing the party line. Elizabeth May (federal leader of the Green Party, but you knew that) tweets more like a real person would. I particularly enjoy her tweets from Parliament Hill, which give insight into things that wouldn’t necessarily make the media:

I had planned to make a statement marking Remembrance Day. I am shocked the CPC has blocked my chance to speak.

They didn’t like the point I was making. 40 years 1913-1956 closure used 10x; in last 40 days, 7x

Conservatives keep limiting debate. They have the votes. Not sure why everything has to be forced thru.

Ban asbestos motion. First vote to keep asbestos trade, our PM.

John McCallum asked Tony Clement about an answer by tweet! Twitter seems to be Clement’s only forum 4 G8 $ Q’s. Baird takes all Qs in QP.

Though must say it’s not exactly improving my opinion of the Conservative Party of Canada.

@simont400000: He being Simon Townshend, the much younger brother of one Pete Townshend, and who also tours with Roger Daltrey. Been kind of fun “following” him on tour:

Great show in Vancouver. Smokin’ crowd! Two shows left on tour and the TCT charity gig in LA. Come along… 2.5k a ticket. Rock n’ Roll!

And his random tweets are also kind of funny:

@Kimmittable: I’m a real fan of your earlier work.” I said that to Joni Mitchell once and she told me to Fuck off. True!

And if you’re wondering what it’s like to not be famous yourself (though he is himself quite a talented composer and musician), but hanging with the very famous:

Getting home from tour is strange… no daily sheet, no room service, no living from suitcase or doing laundry – no gigs. Not being a pop star

@dizzyfeet: This being the moniker of Nigel Lithgow, producer of American Idol and judge on So You Think You Can Dance. It’s in the latter capacity that I’m interested, but I don’t follow anyone else connected with that show. Nigel’s feed is just hilarious as he so frequently engages in public battles with those who reply to this tweets. There’s a whole “Moron” meme running through his feed that you’d have to read back on to completely understand.

RT @Clamanity: @izzyfeet Emmy voters are morons. [I KNOW. I'VE BEEN HANDING OUT #MORON NUMBERS ALL NIGHT. HA, HA!]

He’s also satisfyingly blunt (not mean) in posting his opinion. He’s recently been listed on “Recommend people to follow on Twitter”, so I’m not the only one to notice the fun to be had here. His response:

Welcome to all my new followers. Thank you#NewYorkPost I felt truly proud. Bring on the#Morons.

Of course!

@karenscian: Who? Right! She makes Simon Townshend seem famous. She’s my city councillor. Who has actually gotten in trouble for tweeting during council meetings.

But her feed covers a great deal more than the goings-on at Waterloo City Hall. She comments on Waterloo news in general, federal and provincial politics, food, family… An eclectic mix that very often seems to jibe with my own interests.

And I’ll leave the last tweet to her.

Oh Twitter, you are such a procrastination-enabler.

When voters turned against the Mike Harris, when they ran from John Tory’s school funding proposal, Ms Witmer, Progressive Conservative, still handily won her seat. She’s been in there for something like 21 years. She certainly not going to lose now, when the PCs are riding a “we’re tired of the Liberals!” wave.

This means, under our most undemocratic of electoral systems, me voting is just a waste of time. I am not voting PC, but whether I vote Green, Liberal, NDP, or Marxist-Leninist, whether I spoil my ballot or just sit at home watching TV, the result will the same. Ms. Witmer’s most votes will give the whole seat, and the choice I made will make no difference at all in who runs Ontario.

I will say I don’t have any particular issues with Ms. Witmer. Generally, I think she has been a good representative. And if Ontarians had been smart enough to change their electoral system four years ago, when they had a chance, I might have even have considered voting for her as my MPP, while selecting another party with my second vote.

But, Ontarians didn’t want more democracy, so we have the system we have, and a vote for Ms. Witmer is a vote for Tim Hudak. And I can’t do that.

I’ll grant that my distaste for Mr. Hudak was perhaps not on the most solid basis, initially: The man is just horribly boring to listen to. All he does is repeat sound bites, that nearly always contain the word “tax”. Tax grab. Sneaky eco-tax. Taxman. Tax on home heating.

It’s the most excruciating thing to listen to. (I’ve heard that Queen’s Parks reporters routinely leave his press conferences early, since all he does is repeat his boring lines over and over.) Four years of that? Not sure I can handle it.

Since then, though, he’s given some reasons of more substance to not vote for his party.

The numbers don’t work

As pointed out by that paragon of lefty, socialist thinking, The Toronto Sun, the PC’s economic plan doesn’t add up. Tax reductions and no cuts to education and health sounds great, but how do you pay for it? Truth is that after education and health, there isn’t a whole lot left to cut. So what’s the plan, here? Letting the deficit rise exponentially? Praying for miraculous growth in Ontario’s economy?

(Yes, all the parties are being somewhat unrealistic in their fiscal promises. The PCs are just the most so.)

Update: A rather damning and very detailed examination of just how much the numbers don’t work, courtesy of the Centre for Policy Alternatives. Graphs in Conservative Changebook misleading: At least three of the graphs present data that is clearly false. All of the others contain major errors.

Taxes probably will go up under Hudak

I’m not saying he’ll raise provincial taxes or the HST. But as several have pointed, he will not say whether he will continue to take over the cost of certain municipal programs, as the Liberals plan to do. If he does not (and remember he does have to cut somewhere), it is likely our municipal taxes will increase. OK, they always increase. But they will increase more. And unlike with provincial and federal taxes, which give credits for things like RRSP and charitable donations, there’s nothing you can do to protect your income against those ones.

Addition: The anti-green energy stance

Mr. Hudak wants a better world for his daughter (which I believe), but he’d cancel every green energy project he could? While there do seem to be some flaws in the Liberals handling of the alternative energy file, from what I’ve read, I still applaud the general direction. I believe it’s one of the most progressive in North America. It’s even earned a rare, specific endorsement from David Suzuki!

Xenophobia

Why are politicians allowed to bald-faced lie during elections campaigns, again? In election ads, which can’t be dismissed as an unfortunate slip of the tongue?

Because nothing, nothing has been more appalling to me than this party’s response to the Liberals plans to give tax credits for immigrants who are having trouble finding jobs in their field.

Hudak calls them “foreign workers”. He says the funding will go “outside Ontario”. “Ontarians need not apply.”

But only Canadian citizens would qualify for this tax credit—being a landed immigrant would not be enough. And it’s only for jobs in Ontario.

Hudak is just lying, and in the most xenophobic, divisive, hateful way possible.

Now, I don’t know that the Liberal plan is that wonderful. That professionals who immigrate have trouble finding work in their field is a real problem; I’m not sure how much this would solve it. And I don’t think comparing the PCs to the Tea Party is all that helpful a response, either.

But I do know that all Canadians are equal, no matter how long they’ve been Canadian. And if one group is being particularly discriminated against, it is reasonable for the government to see if something can be done to rectify that.

I won’t vote a party that promotes near-racism.

Unfortunately, what I do won’t make a difference.

Rest of Ontario: Good luck to you. Sorry I can’t be more help.

I’ve been surprised by the strong response to Jack Layton’s death. I’ve been just as surprised how much I share in the feeling. Like going to track down what you think is an obscure song and finding it in the iTunes top 10.

So many Canadians were tweeting on the day of his death, RIP Jack Layton trended not only in Canada, but worldwide, leading to puzzled members of the global twitter-verse to respond with items like, “RIP Jack Layon. Whoever you are.”

That was kind of funny.

A lot of people have said they felt very sad about his death even though they’d never voted NDP. Me, I actually did vote for that party while he was leading it. Heck, I even attended a rally of his once. I’d like to say it was terribly inspiring, but the truth is, I left a little underwhelmed. I think that was his first campaign as NDP leader, and he still had some work to do in learning to inspire the troupes.

But he did get better at that, I thought, even as pragmatism had me voting Liberal the last couple elections. Since that party’s rather stunning performance in the last election, and the equally stunning reaction to his death, of course there has been a lot of attempts at analysis. Most notorious was Christie Blatchford’s, who accused Canadians of show and Layton of cynical manipulation. It’s not just that it was too soon (mere hours after he died); I think she was just wrong, on both counts.

John Doyle, Globe TV critic (of all things), was one of those who, I think. got it more right. Jack persisting through that campaign, which looked hopeless for the NDP at the outset, armed with that cane, yet refusing to give up. Shades (pale shades, but nevertheless) of another Canadian icon, Terry Fox. The man dies, but the movement…? That remains to be seen.

I know some people who just don’t get this whole thing. Who didn’t like him that much, who just don’t feel it, who are tired of hearing about it. Which I can appreciate, because even though I share in the feeling, this “week of Jack” has been a bit much.

But still, I just had to watch the funeral. Which was kind of amazing. Very inclusive (French / English / native, multi-denominational, gay / straight), funny, sad, moving. When Stephen Lewis describe Jack’s letter as “ultimately, a manifesto for social democracy” and got his first of several standing ovations, I thought, “the Conservatives are in trouble.” I’m bad at political prognostication, so I could be wrong about that. But who knows. Optimism is better than despair, right? I think someone said that.

And the opening of that eulogy also, I think, hit the nose on why so many have been so unexpectedly affected by this.

Never in our collective lifetime have we have seen such an outpouring, so much emotional intensity, from every corner of this country. Jack was so alive, so much fun, so engaged in daily life with so much gusto and so unpretentious, it was hard to focus, when he was alive, on how important that was to us, until he was gone…. Jack simply radiated an authenticity, an honesty, and a commitment to his ideals that, we now realize, we were thirsting for.

He tapped into a yearning that politics be conducted in a different way and in that difference, would emerge a better Canada.

Here’s to a better Canada. Thanks, Jack.

In 2003, the Liberal Party of Canada changed campaign finance laws to prevent unions and corporations from donating to political parties, and also capped the amount an individual could donate. To compensate the parties for that loss of income, they brought a per-vote subsidy. Every party that earns at 2% of the popular vote receives about $2 per vote earned.

The last time the Conservatives tried to get rid of this subsidy, it caused a revolt. The other parties banded together against them, formed a coalition, and tried to take over government.

This time, knowing that it’s resistance is futile against this dictatorship—sorry, majority government (hard to tell the difference)—the opposition is giving up without a fight. But opposed or not, what the Conservatives are doing is still wrong.

Official reasoning is spurious

The basic reason given for this is to save money. And sure, this will save about $24 million this year. But political parties, like anything else, take some amount of money to run, and it’s long been accepted that some of that should come from the public purse. If you’re looking to reduce in this area, why pick on this particular form of funding?

What about the fact that when you donate to a political party, you get back 75% of what you give (for the first $400). Whereas if you give to a charity like the Cancer Society, you get back only 25%. Does that seem right to you? The cost of the incredibly generous tax credit is about $21 million per year. Over four years, then? Around $80 million. And if you didn’t get rid of the credit completely, but just reduced it to the same level as what you get for donating to charities? Still about a $50 million saving.

The real reason is offensive

The Conservatives don’t need this subsidy. They apparently get so much money donated to them, they don’t what to do with it all. (In the 2004 election, they even tried laundering it through local ridings.) That’s why they run election ads all the time, not just during elections.

Other parties… Well, they do kind of rely on that funding.

So what’s this really about? Crushing their political rivals. Increasing the degree to which Canadians hear from the Conservative Party of Canada at the expense of other ideas. Trying to make their dictatorship majority permanent.

They’re also silencing voters

The Conservatives are not only hurting other parties here. They’re also getting rid of the only real way in which every federal vote (other than for very minor parties and independents) actually counts.

Because, in Canada’s ridiculous First Past the Post electoral system, most of our votes are wasted. If we had proportional representation, every vote would help form government. But under FPTP, only the votes for the winners do. All other votes have no effect on the makeup of government whatsoever. Whether your MP won by 10 votes or 100,000, he or she gets the seat and the other parties get bupkus. If you voted for anyone other than the person who won, you might as well have stayed home. The resulting seat count would have been identical, either way.

But… At least the party you voted for got funding. Your tax dollars went to them, to help them out next time. It’s not much, but it’s all we had.

Now, we have nothing. Now, most votes will be back to having absolutely no effect at all. Same as if you hadn’t voted at all.

What’s to be done?

Writing to your MP about this… would be a waste of time, I think. It’s in the budget; members of the Conservative Party have to vote for it. The opposition may or may not vote for the budget,  but whatever, it’s still going to pass.

Frankly, the only thing I can think of that would help is to take advantage of that juicy tax credit and donate to any and all federal parties—other than the Conservative Party of Canada.