I seem to be having a satire day

The very first link in my RSS this morning was to a page from Matt Frei's Washington Diaries. Frei talked about the need for American presidential hopeful Barack Obama to grow a sense of humour
(among other things).



Later (in an unrelated attack of nerd), I discovered that JibJab has a new video!
Speaking of a sense of humour...
The New Yorker could probably take a cue or two from this site in terms of writing jokes that are, well, funny.

Avast ye, Bill C-61!

This blog is, for all intents and purposes, electronic driftwood (and soon to be replaced by accounts of my eventual adventures abroad).

I will, however, briefly revive it to join the chorus of voices decrying the silliness that is Bill C-61- An Act to amend the Copyright Act, a piece of proposed legislation known more colloquially (a.k.a. pejoratively) as Canada's DMCA.

The government's introduction to and fact sheets about the bill claim that the legislation embodies

long-overdue and much-needed amendments to the Copyright Act that will bring it in line with advances in technology and current international standards.

While I agree that amendments to Canada's Copyright Act are in fact long overdue, the definition of "international standards" employed here puzzles me a bit; this bill is being widely decried as one that will result in Canada having one of the most restrictive copyright laws for the digital environment in the world. Hardly 'in line.'

Instead of presenting you with my specific grievances with the bill, here follows a list of all the horrible things that other people are saying about it; they cover all the highlights more eloquently than I could.

• Fair Copyright Canada details the adverse effects that C-61 could have on research and learning. This one most eloquently (and bluntly) sums up my sentiments.
• Michael Geist has been raising red flags about this piece of legislation since December, including the lack of consultation going into the bill and some of the more troubling aspects of the fine print.
• Howard Knopf has also been keeping tabs on this little gem for quite some time, keeping fairly extensive tabs on some of the nastier surprises in the wording around circumvention, digital locks and other issues. He also provides links to some of the media coverage that the bill is getting in parts of Ontario.
• Sam Trosow also weighs in on the "flawed" bill.
• Some coverage from The Global and Mail.
• Some coverage from the CBC.
• Some coverage from the Guardian (UK).
• Some coverage from the Vancouver Sun.
• You get the idea - a google search for news on Canada+Copyright yielded 457 articles.
• For some more extensive background, check out the FAQs provided by CIPPIC.
• Appropriation Art condemns the bill, mostly for the regressive impacts it stands to have on the Canadian cultural community. Their collection of news coverage is also rather extensive.
• A Boing-Boing how-to guide for fighting C-61
  
• CoprightWatch is keeping a close eye on all things C-61 (and copyright more generally), with some neat statistics and factoids
• Digital Copyright Canada has criticisms of the proposed amendment from a number of perspectives, including how the changes will hurt musicians, open-source innovators, the Liberal slam about the thing being half-baked, and most ubiquitously, the consumer outcry.
• The Canadian Federation of Students has provided a pretty good brief (pdf) on what's wrong with C-61 (and had it available in April).
• Jeremy de Beer answers your questions and explains why "fair and balanced" isn't the most honest description of this bill that the government could have come up with.
• From opposite ends of the Canadian blogosphere, daveberta and small dead animals have also weighed in.
• From the archives: one of the little scandals that helped bring this legislation down last time around.
• And here, a good summary of recent musings and happenings from p2pnetnews.
  

• ESAC applauds bill C-61. Good for them. So do all these lovely organizations. Bet they have consumers' rights in mind. I mean, the "Entertainment Software Association of Canada (ESAC) is dedicate exclusively to serving the business and public affairs needs of companies in Canada..."
  

That's comforting, right?

Things you can do if you're so inclined:

• Sign the petition to Kill Bill C-61.
• Check out Copyright for Canadians for other ways you can get involved as well as for an easy step-by-step process for writing to your MP (includes a sample letter).
• Write to the Prime Minister, the right Honourable Stephen Harper.
• Write to the Ministry of Industry, the Honourable Jim Prentice.
• Write to the Heritage Minister, the Honourable Josée Vernier.
• Write to James Rajotte, Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Industry Science and Technology.
• If you do facebook, join the Fair Copyright for Canada group.
• Write to Liberal Leader Stéphan Dion, Heritage etc. Critic Denis Coderre and Liberal Consumers Affairs etc. Critic Dan McTeague to encourage them to fight this bill and show up for the vote this time.
• Feel free to write the other parties as well (especially if your MP is a member of them).
  

This piece of legislation is ridiculous. Send the government back to the drawing board to do it properly.

Sometimes when you lose, you win

http://www.ewb.ca/en/whatyoucando/volunteer/longterm.html

I actually learned something.

I was reading the sixth Morgenthau Lecture given by one Dr. Jacques Barzun today.
The speech, entitled "Is Democratic Theory for Export?", is quite good. Compelling, insightful, etc., etc.

What I actually liked about the speech is that I could be pretentious about having understood it.

What are these missionaries to preach? Where do we find
the parallel to the writings of Marx and Lenin, and what do those
writings tell?
Different persons would give different answers, which is a weakness
to begin with. Some would point to the Declaration of Independence
and the federal Constitution; others to Rousseau, Edmund Burke,
Thomas Paine. Then there is Tocqueville’s Democracy in America in
two volumes and a wonderful little book by Walter Bagehot on the
English Constitution, not to mention The Federalist papers and many
eloquent pages from John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham
Lincoln. Taken loosely together, those writings would be regarded by many as making up the theory of democracy.

Instead of caring about the point of the article, I found myself checking off which texts I knew.
To make a long story short - most of them.
Moral of said story - a liberal arts/social science degree is good for something. Feeling smart enough to read (though not necessarily understand or care about) texts by other social scientists/liberal artists.

Now if we could only figure out what democratic theory is so that we could export it.

Oh Snap!

Apparently, minimum security prison is reserved for American citizens in the lovely U.S. of A.

Totally sucks to be this guy.

In related news, my blog is topical for this first time in over a month.
...
Yay?

It's called a PRINCIPLE. Not principal. PRINCIPLE.

Seriously.
I know that I am in a swiftly-decreasing minority for caring about grammar and the actual definitions of the words we use. But this is my blog and I can rant about whatever I like here. You people of the text message lexicon can shove off.

Today's irritant - Principle vs. Principal (as you may have gathered).
The catalyst for today's outburst comes from the release of Our Fair Share, the Alberta Auditor General's indictment of the Alberta oil revenue royalty regime.
Remember kids: this is a formal government document and is furthermore from the Auditor General's office, which means that it should theoretically be, you know, correct.

"The principals of transparency and accountability, I believe, were not followed. I'm not impressed."

"The department should demonstrate its stewardship of Alberta's royalty regime and provide analysis to support that stewardship and this was not done."

"The department's monitoring and technical review findings were communicated to decision-makers. The question is: Did they hear or were they listening? At the end of the day, I don't know, but they chose not to act."

(quote gratuitously ripped off of daveberta)

Do you see it there? "The PRINCIPALS of transparency and accountability."
Whatever could they mean?
The most commonly used (correct) meaning of the word would render the phrase like this:
"The most important of transparency and accountability."
hmm... that can't be it.
How about "The original sum of money lent of transparency and accountability."
Nope.
Let's try "The person with the most authority or administrative seniority (as in the principal of a school), of transparency and accountability."
That doesn't make sense either...
Last one in common usage, then: "The person for whom another acts as an agent for of transparency and accountability."
...I don't think that's what they meant either. Not even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and take out the 'of.'

Well, what a mystery. How could none of the commonly used definitions of the word 'principal' accurately portray the meaning of the sentence? That's so strange...

Well, maybe it's because the drafters of this document (and others) didn't consult a damned dictionary; maybe it's because they like sounding like illiterate monkeys when they're trying to stick it to the Ministry of Energy. That's the only reasonably explanation I can think of, since, if someone actually had looked up the word, they would have figured out that if you sub "principle" in for "principal" you look like less of an idiot when you try the exercise above.
Observe.
"The fundamental truths of transparency and accountability (that underly our system of beliefs)."
Hey! That's actually plausible.
"The general ideas of transparency and accountability."
That's kind of weak, but I get the basic idea.
"The morally correct attitudes of transparency and accountability."
Wait, it gets better...
"The fundamental laws of transparency and accountability."
Holy crap. That's a coherent sentence.

Today's lesson: if it's about being right, it's a matter of principle. Learn to spell, dumbass.

We Win!

Does this mean that I have to change the title of my blog?