Tory Concern

A news post on CBC.ca has revealed that Prime Minister Harper apparently wrote a letter back in 2002, that says he called the Kyoto Accord a "socialist scheme". At the time, he was leader of the Canadian Alliance party, now no longer in existence. He intended to fight then Prime Minister Chretien on the signing of the Kyoto Accord.

Now, with Canadians voicing concern over the environment, and Canada's role in the care of it, this comes as terrible news for the Conservatives. It casts a pall over the new Tory commitment to the Clean Air Act, and may sway the public more towards the Liberals. Not only does the Clean Air Act have undeniable similarities to the Liberals' own environmental plan, but the Conservatives have also been accused of ignoring Canada's signed commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

While I don't particularly agree with the idea of the Kyoto Accord being a "social scheme", I also find it hard to hold Harper's history against him. As a former leader of the Canadian Alliance party, it's clear that there would be a stockpile of things the Liberals might use to denounce Harper's commitment to the environment. This is something that could be done against any number of former opposition leaders.

The Liberals were the ones who endorsed the Kyoto Accord, but why is it that we're not approaching our targets 5 years after the agreement was ratified? Why is it that after promising and throwing billions of dollars at environmental clean-up plans, we are up nearly 30% past our 2012 targets? I really don't think the Liberals should be the ones calling on the Conservatives to clean-up their act.

We'll see how this plays out in the media. But I am still concerned that Harper may not be as committed to the environment as he should be.

Capital City

Edmonton is a joke. As Alberta's capital city, it houses a) North America's second largest mall, b) Alberta's legislative houses, and c) our idiot premier, Ed Stelmach.

As a Calgarian, I am obligated to hate Edmonton. That's just how it is. Calgarians hate Edmontonians (jesus that's a long name), and Edmontonians hate Calgarians. But the rivalry exists for more than just the fact that Edmonton is Edmonton, and Calgary is Calgary.

Calgary is host every year to the Stampede Exhibition and Showcase. It has laid its claim as the Greatest Outdoor Show on Earth. We know this is true because during Stampede week (which isn't really a week, it's actually 10 days) Calgary's economy skyrockets. All the hotels fill up, we get visitors from around the world, and attendance nets in around 1.2 million visitors (Calgary's population recently hit 1 million). By comparison, Edmonton follows up with its Klondike Days (now sadly known only as Edmonton's Capital Ex), a poor imitation of Calgary's rodeo and exhibition.

Calgary is also home to the headquarters of many major electrical corporations (ATCO Group, ENMAX), oil companies (Imperial Oil, PetroCanada), and gas companies (ATCO Gas). Being a province drowning in the surplus reaped from a booming energy market, Calgary sees the majority of that market share being used to improve what is clearly the better city. In Edmonton, funds are running so low that snow which has been on the ground since early this winter, has not yet been cleared. Calgary, meanwhile, has had several snowfalls, each of which was dealt with accordingly with gravel and street cleaning following each melt. As a result, many roads in Edmonton are lined with massive piles of hardened snow and ice.

Lastly, Calgary is home to Stephen Harper's political riding, Calgary South-West. Joe Clark, former leader of the PC party also represented Calgary SW. Calgary SW is situated in and around Mount Royal, a neighborhood that was once used to house executives of major energy corporations. As a result, it is one of Calgary's wealthiest neighborhoods, with properties ranging in the millions (10 years ago, the average price for property stood at around $300,000, and is now $1.4 million).

A minor geographical note, Edmonton is not situated along the TransCanada highway, it sits 3 hours North of Hwy1.

Calgary is clearly the superior city, and were it not for the legislative buildings located way up there, we would be fully deserving of the title, Alberta's Capital.

What's Missing from My Life?

I have always believed that a person should be complete on their own before seeking out a partner. To do otherwise might lead to using partners as ways of getting to that minimal level of happiness. Having now been single for almost a year (a week after Valentine's Day will make it exactly one year since my last "date"), I'm beginning to wonder if that's true.

Since I arrived back in Calgary, I wondered if opportunities to meet people would improve. Maybe I might find someone right here in my own hometown. It seemed almost impossible, since Calgary isn't exactly the most liberal city in Canada. There were several instances where I certainly had the opportunity to "make a move", but I told myself "I'm leaving in a few months, why start anything now?"

As time wore on, I began to feel more and more alone. I felt unhappy, dissatisfied with my life and my current state of mind. Falling back on my belief system, I told myself that it would be impossible to find someone if I couldn't rediscover my own happiness within myself. I had to improve my self-confidence and self-esteem if I was to find another human being to share myself with.

The problem is, couples are everywhere. For instance, just last week I was wandering around West Edmonton Mall and noticing just how many couples there were around me. And yet, for almost a year I haven't had a single date. Not one. That's the problem, I am constantly reminded of how many people in my life have others to share theirs with. No matter how much time I spend meditating, trying to find that inner happiness that once fueled an ability to go up to virtually anyone and ask for a phone number, it eludes me still.

I question myself daily: do I need to be complete before finding someone else, or can someone else help me to become more complete once again? Have I subconsciously shut the world out in an effort to regain my inner balance, or is this the point where I swallow my pride and ask for support from another person?

The answers remain distant, but I know they're there. It's just a matter of time before I figure it out, and maybe this is meant to be. Maybe I need to hit the bottom again before I can start climbing up again. And if that's the case, then I would gladly let go to speed things up.

A Developer's World vs The Real World

I work at a company that develops stand-alone applications for use in the deregulated electricity market of Alberta. Our applications are web-based, and thus require a browser to function. Given the nature of the Internet, this means that we need our applications to be compatible with the browsers of our clients. At present, those browsers are Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) and Mozilla's Firefox (FF).

Most of you would be quick to say that Firefox is a superior browser that offers far more in terms of innovation and choice, but the fact remains, Firefox is open-source. And as an open-source piece of software, anyone has the ability to write into the code malicious scripts. It is thus a security liability. This is how major corporations view Firefox. For this reason, IT departments are reluctant if not adamant about preventing downloads of Firefox on company computers. Being a small, private company, we are able to test and use Firefox on our desktops provided we use common sense and are careful about what we view with the browser. But as far as the industry is concerned, we need our applications have full functionality in IE.

So now that you have a little background, let's get to the real issue at hand. As part of our team, we have a number of developers who have created, maintain, and support our various applications. They are the ones who implement the bug fixes, they are the ones who make the improvements, etc. But all of the information they need to make those changes comes filtered from the marketing and client relations team. The client management team is the one who deals directly with the clients. They are the ones our clients talk to when things do work, they're the ones who get shit when things don't work. All this input is then handed over to the developers. At no point do the developers communicate with clients. It follows then that developers can act without fear of backlash from software that doesn't work like it should.

Which brings me to the application in question. I have been tasked with overseeing the creation of documentation for a new application we've been contracted to build. I will also be the one going to the various clients and training them in the use of the system. The lead developer for this application decided, despite being told otherwise, that he would do primary development in Firefox and secondary development in IE. That is to say that the program works better in Firefox than it does in IE, more specifically IE7. Our clients, as previously stated, do not use Firefox. What good does it do them to have a piece of software that only really works in a browser they don't use?

After copious amounts of complaining and argument, this developer was told by his superiors that the program would have to be made compatible with IE, but not on company time. So now our application works almost as good in IE7 as it does in Firefox.

I take issue with this whole situation, not only because it's my responsibility to train people on the use of the application, but also because a personal preference should never take precedence over company requirements. The developer has no right to dictate how clients should use software when the clients are the ones paying us to develop software for them. As far as we're concerned, the customer is always right. Well, almost. But consider this: our clients will be the ones using the system, does it not make sense to create an application that not only caters to their needs, but is also a seamless transition from the old system to our new one? What good does it do us to make their lives harder? From the client management team's perspective, the less abrupt this shift is, the less shit they'll be getting later by way of phone calls, e-mails, complaints, and so forth. You can see now how the developers pull this sort of stubborn, arrogant bullshit without worrying about how it'll affect them.

Hypothetical situation: NASA hires you to build software for their shuttle launch. Do you write the software and then tell them to overhaul their protocols to fit your software? Or do you try as hard as you possibly can to make it a smooth transition? Which answer will get you fired and which will have you signing contracts with NASA for years to come?

As it stands right now, the application is useable. Our clients will hate it, but that can be minimized through the numerous changes that I intend to have made before it's released into Production. I guess I'm just frustrated because we have developers who have no idea how our clients want things, but those same developers think they can dictate to our clients how to run their businesses.

Blood Diamond

Conflict stones, the currency which fueled terrorist groups and warlords in Sierra Leone during the late 1990's. Also known as 'blood diamonds' these stones were mined by slaves, smuggled across borders, and then finally shipped off to countries where they became indistinguishable from other rough cut diamonds. Only their origins and the blood shed for their unearthing marked them as anything but precious.

Edward Zwick's most recent film, Blood Diamond, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Djimon Hounsou, and Jennifer Connelly is the latest take on the civil wars that rage across Africa. At its core is a romantic tale about family, survival, and love. It's done with plenty of action, drama, and emotion, enough to satisfy all kinds of viewers.

"In America, it's bling bling. But out here it's bling bang."
- Leonardo DiCaprio

The story revolves around a fisherman, Djimon Hounsou, who was separated from his family during an attack by the R.U.F. rebels, and a diamond smuggler, played by Leonardo DiCaprio. DiCaprio does an excellent job as the white-African diamond smuggler who stumbles upon a local fisherman who has uncovered an unusually large diamond while working as a slave for the R.U.F. The accent, I'm told, is a little off kilt, but otherwise well done. He also makes much of the character his own by bringing more personality to the part than being just a smuggler, someone always looking to make a quick buck. Djimon Hounsou is also excellent as the desperate father attempting to locate his broken family, while evading the murderous gunfire of both government military and R.U.F. rebels alike. Finally, Jennifer Connelly adds that bit of feminine touch as the intrepid journalist seeking a story that will change the way people look at the conflict in Sierra Leone.

"Off the record, I like to get kissed before I get fucked."
- Danny Archer

Africa provides a myriad of locations which highlight the absolute beauty of the wild continent while at the same time revealing the desperate and disparate state of living for millions of refugees. Shanty towns are well shot, and adequately situate the film and its characters. And while these are key visuals, the true beauty of the film shines through in the wide-angle shots of the African grasslands and jungles.

The score is, not surprisingly, mostly vocal, with that 'haunting' feel to it. Think Gladiator, but in Africa (also a film Mr. Hounsou has appeared in). Despite the beautifully crafted melodies brought out in the score, it plays mostly in the background and does not actively engage the viewer. Its role in setting the mood and atmosphere is mildly lacking.

Action abounds, as does violence. Granted this is a Hollywood movie about civil wars, so expect to see plenty of bloodshed and gunfire. On a side note, it was interesting to see that a mother brought her infant son into the theater. The action is probably the best part of the entire movie, consuming at least three quarters of the film. There are mounted guns on vehicles, handguns, rifles, helicopters performing air strikes, etc. If you want to see people mercilessly massacred on all fronts, then this is the movie for you. It's all very graphic, so beware.

Overall, Blood Diamond does an awesome job of both entertaining the viewers and educating them on the nature of said stones. Having been based on real events, it doesn't come across as patronizing or cheesy, although the final line of the film suggests to viewers that only consumers have the power to choose non-conflict diamonds. I highly recommend it, and I must say DiCaprio's Golden Globe Award nomination for Best Actor in a drama is well deserved.

In Silence, There is Peace

"No sooner spoken than broken..."

Having just spent the last four days alone in the house, I find myself suddenly inundated with noise. The sound of footsteps on the floors above, the dishwasher running, a TV airing reruns. All of it, it just feels so....loud.

This feeling has been further impressed by a viewing of Terrence Malick's The New World. This film artfully reflects the meeting of Europeans and First Nations on the shores of what is now Virginia. Before the arrival of settlers, the First Nations peoples knew peace and tranquility. A certain ease with the world around them. Upon landing on the shores, the settlers begin their devastation of the land. Cutting down trees, firing cannons, building forts and houses. All of it, noise and static in a land at peace with its inhabitants.

And that's not the only way this idea is conveyed. Malick also reduces the amount of spoken dialogue in the film, giving way to images and music which more than adequately instill a mood and sense of serenity in the viewer. The characters are not uncomfortable in the long silences, and are able to communicate without needless flapping of the mouth.

Have we lost our commune with that which is unheard? We drown ourselves in the noise that fills our world. On streets, the sound of cars whizzing by, horns blaring, alarms ringing. In buildings, phones jingle, doors slam, music plays. Only when we exit the concrete jungle to enter the outside world does all of that stop.

People spend hours talking on their phones if only to feel connected in some way to another human being. We make small-talk to fill the empty silences that accompany meetings. And when silence finally descends upon a group of people, a single word emerges: awkward.

Why is that? Why has it become so difficult to enjoy the stillness of the air and to not be constantly in need of noise? I try to make use of quiet surroundings to distill my thoughts. Meditation in a secluded space allows me to appreciate my experiences and ideas. But when confronted with so much noise, this can be very frustrating. In these sessions, I find myself going ever deeper to escape the ringing and banging and talking. Tuning out has become a necessary skill, if only to maintain my sanity.

Go back in your memory. Find the last time you stopped to enjoy silence. I know how it made me feel. How about you?