One-man "Book of the Month Club"

I have begun giving my street friend, Curtis James, my extra novels to read. Occassionally, I have had extra copies of James Bond novels or other detective/spy thrillers that have no room on my bookshelf. Curtis once told me that he really liked detective novels - the excitement, the action, the women, so I began to keep him in mind whenever I had a spare thing to read. Sometimes, this gift would be in lieu of pocket change when I was a bit short, and other times, the book would come with some silver.

I saw Curtis today on my way home from work. He had positioned his wheelchair along Georgia, in time to catch the crowds heading to the Canucks game. Smart guy.

He told me that currently he's reading "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", which I do think is one of Ian Fleming's best Bond stories. "I'm looking forward to Moonraker", he called after me as I wisahed him a good weekend.

It's nice to have someone to share my books with.

Should Canada get out of NAFTA?

Well friends, a lot of Canadians are pissed at the lack of progress in the ongoing softwood lumber dispute. British Columbia's lumber industry has been taking an economic pummelling because of this for the past few years now.

Numerous WTO rulings have gone in Canada's favour over the past few years, and the rulings generally state that the countervailing duties imposed by the U.S. on Canadian softwood are unfair and "illegal" (see the Canadian Gov't web site on this topic: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/what-en.asp).

Here's a timeline of events from the "Epoch Times" web site:
http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-9-3/31898.html

Widely respected former Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, Lloyd Axeworthy, says:

The reality is that we are dealing with an American political system currently steeped in the ideology of "empire." It recognizes few rules, adheres only to those treaties that are expedient to basic interests, and believes that the only political currency that counts is the exercise of raw power.

In its mildest form, it practises a la carte bilateralism, co-operating only when it wants to, and when it suits short-term domestic or international objectives. In its bad days, it simply follows a strategy of "take no prisoners," "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead," "don't tread on me," "America First," or any other of the clichés used by ultra-patriots. These are the extant policy directives from the White House.

...

Compounding these difficulties are new U.S. security measures at the border that increasingly restrict the movement of goods and people. Canada has been exceedingly compliant with these security demands, accepting with little challenge the U.S. view of counterterrorism, to the point of conceding an erosion of basic Charter rights.

Let's face it: This is a painful and uncertain time in our relations with the United States. Muddling through from crisis to crisis won't work.

Neither will listening to the chorus of continentalist claptrap promoting more U.S.-Canada integration — look no farther than the present disputes to see where such policies have landed us — or the calls for protectionism and retaliation that can still be heard from the Left. It's time for new policies and tough action to shift our trade and security strategies away from a preoccupation with continental matters to a more global footing.

Let's begin by seriously considering an end to NAFTA and reliance instead upon the World Trade Organization to regulate the terms and provisions of free trade.

It's pretty strong language, from a man who has an international perspective, and the experience to know what he's talking about. (Read Lloyd Axeworthy's full article from the Toronto Sun...)

Some other people feel that Canada should just get the heck out of the North American Free Trade Agreement altogether. According to this article by two guys who appear to be practically experts on NAFTA it might be a good idea: http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0509170/cg170_nafta.shtml

The fact is, something like 85% of Canada's trade is with the U.S., so some of our politicians up here are quite rightly worried about jeopardizing that trade. Without more diversity in our international trade, the negative impact of the loss of it for some provinces would be devastating.

It will take time for other international trade markets (like China, or the European Union) to develop to such a degree that Canada would have a buffer against any potential worsening in the Canada-U.S. trade war.

My gut tells me that this agressive approach to trade by the American Lumber Lobby (as one example) hints at one thing: insecurity, economically speaking, from the American manufacturers and exporters. If I am correct, then this is a "me first - screw everyone else" approach that will only further damage U.S. foreign relations. The scent in the wind now is that the Bush administration is beginning to soften their approach overall - starting to become more conciliatory or middle-ground, and less polarized.

It's so weird. Canadian and American people on a personal level, have always had the capacity to be friendly and help each other when times are tough. Look how many Canadian rescue teams and supplies and equipment flew down to New Orleans (and are still down there.) We Canadians took our American friends in during 9/11. We have always had the capacity to care about each other and cooperate on a personal level as individuals. It seems to be the ideologues and the protectionist, "money before people" capitalists who screw up the happy vibe between our two countries.

It can be hard to find a balance between sharing and protecting one's own interests. But, this particular trade war is an example of the scale being forced too far to one side, to Canada's disadvantage, and I think a reassessment and some "insurance" is called for between the two governments. As the old saying goes up here, "The U.S. are our best friends, whether we like it or not".

Canada and the U.S. have had numerous trade disputes in the past, so perhaps that in itself is just part of our relationship. Maybe the dispute isn't the problem, but just a function of the relationship, and the real barometer of our collective health is how humanely and peacefully we solve our disputes.

Grokking Einstein's Big Idea: The Legacy of E=mc2

I had seen the phrase E=mc² since I was maybe eight of nine years old. To me, it was almost like Mickey Mouse's ears, or Groucho's moustache. It was an enigmatic icon of popular culture; a meme that seemed to be all over the place.

As a kid, when I read the letters on the page of a book or wherever I first saw them, I interpreted the phrase as "E equals em see two". I had absolutely no idea what an exponent was, much less what Einstein's famous formula actually represented.

It is still a bit of a struggle for me as an adult. I rank E=mc² as one of the most important discoveries (or dare I say 'truths') of this century. As part of my belief system, I'm sure it would practically eclipse all religious beliefs in significance, it I could just figure out what it was all about. (Perhaps I am as blind in my faith in science as I assume religious zealots to be in their religion. I am comfortable being that guy.)

In my most recent attempt to read Einstein's book on the theory of Relativity, it stumped me. I got farther than last time, but it still lost me somewhere after the "Lorentz transformation". So, I dug out my copy of "The Illustrated Brief History of Time" and have now almost completed it. (Thank you Professor Stephen Hawking!)

That little detour sort of primed the pump of physics comprehension for me. However, in spite of that, I still didn't pick up the Einstein book again. Perhaps part of me was still a little bit intimidated. I thought that maybe there might be some good tutorials or explanations for kids (high school through college) on the web, which could help me even more.

And of course there were. Most notably, I found a PBS web site for a NOVA TV program called "Einstein's Big Idea: The Legacy of E=mc2". This is a documentary which will air on PBS in October 2005. On the program's companion web site, there is some good introductory and background material which I would recommend to anyone before diving into the Professor's book.

NOVA | Einstein's Big Idea | The Legacy of E = mc2 | PBS

Explanations and the impact of E=mc2, from 10 prominent physicists

Counting Angels on the Head of a Pin

I'm taking another crack at learning about Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

This is the second or third time I've tried to get through it, and it's been a tough bit of sledding. I'm reading "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory", which is sub-titled as "a clear explanation that anyone can understand".

Much to his credit, the great man does a good job of laying down the foundations of relative time and distance, and I have gotten past The Lorentz Transformation (Chapter 11), and more or less understood it - which might be the first time for me.

It describes a mathematical formula for translating quantities of velocity and mass from one base of reference to another (e.g. the speed/time of an event relative to a static location, like Einstien's famous embankment, versus the same event viewed from another moving location, like a passing locomotive).

All the same, Professor Einstein's best attempts to describe his theories have still left me struggling. Some of my difficulty could be due to his particular use of language, or the way the original 1916 text was translated into English. I have found many of his sentances to be slightly too long, academically detailed, and occasionally, just plain confusing. But, I feel like this is like an invitation to peek into a higher realm of understanding, so I must "press on" as my art teacher Tom used to say...

Looking for help from a more "base" base of reference, I grabbed "The Illustrated Brief History of Time" by Professor Stephen Hawking. This is the fully illustrated, updated 1996 version of his famous 1988 book, which traced the history of our understanding of physics from Aristotle through to the present day. Hawking's narrative style is light, plain, and infused with references to everyday experiences - easily-graspable metaphors which really clarify concepts which seem otherwise totally alien to our daily experiences.

So, why John, why? Weren't you studying religion or philosophy up until recently? What's with the sudden interest in physics?

I have asked mysef this too before. (I still haven't finished the Bible, and the Koran is gathering dust on my bedside. I feel like their all different facets of the same truths. The best answer I can come to is that studying physics gives me a real sense of the grand mystery of the Universe - it pulls me out of the context of my daily human scale and reminds me that there is so much still to be understood.

Perhaps other people feel this way when they comntemplate a religious mystery or a grand philosophical abstract idea. Physics and astronomy tend to do it most noticeably for me.

Not too long ago, while standing in line for a Pink Floyd Laser show at the H.R. Macmillan Space Centre here in Vancouver, I was looking at an amazing photograph on the wall. It was taken from a large telescope (maybe even the Hubble space telescope), and showed hundreds of little blobs of light densely packed together. Each light was in fact, a Galaxy, and the image was only a tiny section of a much larger photograph. I read that the section I was looking at was literally no larger than the head of a pin!

There was an old rhetorical, zen-like question, maybe hundreds of years old, that goes "How many Angels can dance on the head of pin?" To me, this question sounds useless - it has no meaning other than to evoke an impossible or fantasic, fairy-tale image. But perhaps to someone else, it has some meaning and spirit.

How many Angels, indeed...

Dear Akbar and Jeff: Go North!

"We must always remember that 'separate but equal' is not equal."

So spoke Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin during the second reading debate on Bill C-38 (The Civil Marriage Act) in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill on February 16, 2005.
(See the full text of the second reading.)

This quote is from the CBC web site's "Timeline of Events":

"The Liberals' controversial Bill C-38, titled Law on Civil Marriage, passes a final reading in the House of Commons, sailing through in a 158-133 vote. Supported by most members of the Liberal party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, the vote makes Canada the third country in the world, after the Netherlands and Belgium, to officially recognize same-sex marriage."

So, Canada becomes the third country in the world to recognize gay marriage. It's not quite a landslide victory - the vote tallied 158 for and 133 against - but still it's a significant-enough margin and makes a pretty strong statement.

This is not such a new development for those of us out here on the west coast of Canada in British Columbia, where same sex marriage has been legal since 2003, but this is pretty new federally-speaking; "the paint is still wet" on this issue, and there's likely to be a lot of noise and protest againt it from various social and religious conservatives who feel that their beliefs are being threatened.

I generally don't pay too much attention to CNN, Fox, or the other rightish mainstream U.S. media, but I wouldn't be surprised if the far-rightists and religious (funda)mental cases have lots to say about Canada's new level of moral decay...

More from the CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/index.html

A related story from "The Blog of Love":
http://ejohnlove.blogspot.com/2005/05/only-in-canada-you-say-pity.html

Additional Thoughts on my Mum

If I had to sum up my curiosity about my Mother in one question, it'd be "Who is she?" I wish I could say that her and I'd had ever talked about anything substantial, or that she had ever told me anything about herself, but I would remember it if she had. So, that's how I know she didn't.

Whatever I think I know about my Mum's life or personality, I heard from my Dad or from her relatives - it's all second-hand memories, like the photos in our albums. I have second-hand pictures and words, records of other people's experiences with her, and very few of my own.

I always felt like there was some funny distance between me and her. Her main relationship was with her parents first, and then my Dad. Her children came third or less. Growing up, Kim and I were just "the kids" - as if we were in a whole different category. Even when I was small, I could feel some of that distance. I just didn't know my Mum well enough, and it got worse each year as I got older.

I've only ever seen glimpses of who she once had been - the beautiful, talented, loving person all her friends and cousins remember. I have seen her bored or upset or raving drunkenly. I have only seen her beautiful side a few times in brief glimpses, It always felt so rare because to me, it was.

More of the same:
http://ejohnlove.blogspot.com/2003/05/happy-mothers-day-mum-wherever-you-are.html
http://ejohnlove.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_ejohnlove_archive.html

Is a Taser enough force? Part 2

This is an update to my previous article "How much force is enough?"


It has been months and months since the announcement of a full coroner's inquest into events surrounding the death of Robert Wayne Bagnell, which happened almost a year ago. A coroner's inquest had been set to start in May 2005, but I recently learned from Patti Gillman, sister of the deceased, that that date has been postponed.

So, it seems we're in a holding pattern still, waiting for the start of an investigation that could clarify the cause(s) of Bob Bagnell's death during an altercation with police in a downtown Vancouver Hotel in June 2004.

Meanwhile, Bob's sister Patti is following the progress of the Ontario Coroner's inquest into another Taser-related death, that of Peter Lamonday. In May 2004, Lamonday died after being "shocked several times by Police" during their attempts to arrest and restrain him. The inquest into the Lamonday death is the first Taser-related death to be investigated in a Coroner's inquest in the province of Ontario. No doubt the media and law enforcement will pay close attention to those proceedings.

According to what I have read in the media and online, many preliminary police coroner reports have said that Taser use was not to the blame in these deaths. Causes of death in many of the cases were attributed to excessive cocaine use, leading to a "drug induced psychosis" and heart failure.

Some people are more than suspicious of claims by law enforcement and the Taser manufacturer that this particular tool is not in some way contributing to deaths in these cases.

According to an article on the CTV web site:

"Amnesty International has said the weapon should be banned until more tests are done to determine its safety. The human rights group says the guns can be deadly when someone is in a weakened state because of heart problems or drug use."

Read more on this page from Amnesty International: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR200022004?open&of=ENG-2M4

Below is Patti Gillman's recent letter to the London Free Press, detailing her observations of the Lamonday inquest and in general:

"Letter to the Editor:

I held my breath waiting for the Coroner's Inquest into Peter Lamonday's death. I was naively confident that the first Taser-death related inquest in Ontario would at long last provide an opportunity for a much needed and long overdue dialogue on the perils of continued Taser use in Ontario.

When I learned that no independent expert Taser witness would be called to testify, and that those who would testify were public officials who have been openly supportive of Tasers, it became clear that the results of this travesty were a foregone conclusion.

It is atrocious and a great disservice to Mr. Lamonday and the other 9 Canadians (including my brother) who have died, not to mention those who will surely follow – that the role of the Taser in Mr. Lamonday’s premature and senseless death was not more thoroughly examined but was, instead, hastily dismissed by so-called experts on day one of the inquest. From there, the Taser and its part in Mr. Lamonday’s demise were substantially ignored. It is indefensible that no one saw fit to challenge this colossal omission. It is said that justice must be seen to be done, to be done. Sadly, justice was seen to be absent from this inquest.

The police officers likely did not intend to use deadly force on Mr. Lamonday when they Tasered him. It is reasonable to believe that they did not know they were playing Russian roulette with a potentially lethal weapon, since they had been so artfully sold a "non-lethal" bill of goods. If Taser use is to continue in Ontario and in Canada, then the weapon’s place on the continuum of force must be increased to a level equal to deadly force, so that police officers can better predict a potentially deadly outcome and consider their force options more carefully.

The Taser may not have been the sole cause of Mr. Lamonday’s death. But its supporting role simply cannot be ignored, especially given that the weapon’s own manufacturer, Taser International, recently came closer than ever before to saying that use of Tasers can lead to death. Taser International stated: "Our products are often used in aggressive confrontations that may result in serious, permanent bodily injury or death to those involved. Our products may cause or be associated with these injuries."

The rising number of deaths validates the company’s announcement. What more do Ontario officials need before they suspend their own disbelief?"

As an observer who knew Bob Bagnell in my own small way, my motivation rests in the concern that the dead in these situations do not become dehumanized because of poverty, their lifestyle or because of the violent circumstances of their deaths. I do not claim to know much about the other 90-plus Taser-related deaths documented thus far in the U.S. and Canada - I can only claim some knowledge of one particular victim. His family and others are looking for information and closure. (My personal web tribute to Robert Wayne Bagnell gives a portrait-in-progress: http://robertbagnell.ejohnlove.com)

I'm skeptical of an article on a seemingly police-friendly web site quoting the deputy coroner at the Lamonday inquest. He stated that the Taser was not to blame in Lamonday's death because the man died much later, and not immediately after the shock. This kind of logic is likely the start of some precedent-setting somewhere... we'll see.

Sorry - but my concerns are not yet quieted. I can't help but feel a bit cynical when the ads surrounding this particular article are... Taser ads.

"Only in Canada you say? Pity."

Recently, my wife and I were very proud to attend the wedding of two friends. It was a small civil ceremony held at a private home, perched on a cliff overlooking a beautiful 180 degree view of Howe Sound. Even though the sky was cloudy, the rain had managed to stay away.

After making our rounds through the crowd, re-meeting many of my wife's former colleagues, we all assembled out on the sundeck. A small wooden stand held a register and some papers bearing the BC provincial logo. The Marriage Commissioner performing the ceremony asked us all to come closer. The deck was crowded with friends and family. We chuckled as we shuffled a foot or two towards our friends, two men who had been together for 22 years. They turned and faced each other and the ceremony began.

The couple, their mothers and fathers and long-time friends all wept with joy as they recited their vows and pledged their love and committment to each other. It was simple, heartfelt and absolutely genuine, without the pomp and circumstance of some of the large, church weddings we have also witnessed, but just as grand an event. Perhaps because it was small and intimate, it really had a strong impact on me. I could see how much these two guys loved each other, and how much their family and friends loved and supported them. The sun shone down through the clouds, voices cracked and tears flowed, and they each said "I do". It was beautiful.

When the Commissioner said "by the power vested in me by the province of British Columbia", I felt so proud of my home province. Same-sex marriage only became legal in BC in 2003. As of February 2005, it is legal in 7 of 10 provinces and one in three territories in Canada. All the same, same-sex marriage has been a pretty controversial issue in Canada. In the U.S., even more so.

At the end of the day, I feel that the act of marriage doesn't materially change the level of committment in a relationship. Our two friends have been committed to each other for as long as me and my wife, with the two of them only recently deciding to tie the knot, so I know their committment to each other is very strong, marriage notwithstanding. And these guys have withstood social tests, pressures and prejudices from our society that a heterosexual couple would never have to tolerate.

A marriage ceremony is symbolically, socially, and emotionally a powerful thing; an acknowledgement of a couple's committment to their relationship, done in front of others who are there to witness and support the union.

A little background on same-sex marriage from the CBC web site.