Rants – Page 19 – a sibilant intake of breath

Diaspora – a less evil Facebook?

I am increasingly wary of Facebook. I don’t trust them with my photos, phone number, or full name. I worry about all the information they can extrapolate from my web of friends.

My hope is that Disapora will emerge as a less evil social network – one that supplies the considerable benefits of social networking, but with real respect for the privacy and interests of users.

Thanks to my friend Alison, I have an account on the alpha version of Diaspora. I have some invitations, so if anyone is especially keen to give it a try, they should let me know.

Iggy pot

As shown in a video from the Canadian Press, Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff was asked whether he had ever smoked marijuana. Here is what I think he said in response:

I have smoked pot as a young man, yes. I did not. And it’s one of the reasons. And I urge young people not to repeat the experience. It did not ruin my life. I just think there are a lot more important and interesting things to do with your life, including a glass of wine after dinner. I mean, let’s all relax here.

The Globe and Mail captioned the video: “Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff admits he smoked marijuana when he was younger, but he says, he prefers a nice glass of wine.”

If that’s what it comes down to – a matter of preference – I feel obligated to ask about the severe double standard that exists in the law now. Ignatieff’s drug of choice is available in all of Canada’s finest restaurants. They will bring it to you for free in first class on Air Canada. And yet if you prefer the other drug he has tried, you risk being branded as a criminal, fined, and potentially imprisoned.

It doesn’t make sense to apply a harsh legal regime to drugs that are less harmful than alcohol. If we grant adults the sovereign right to poison themselves with alcohol or nicotine or caffeine, we should acknowledge the same right with regard to marijuana, MDMA, and other comparatively benign substances.

Sex and understanding nature

Walking around the other day, observing the slow emergence of spring, it occurred to me that there is another whole set of reasons to provide children with early and accurate sexual education, aside from their important right to understand their own bodies.

Briefly, it is impossible to understand nature, history, or biology well without knowing about sex. Why do plants have flowers? Why do birds and insects fly between them? Why do animals form pairs? Why do some species of bird have males that look very different from females (displaying sexual dimorphism)? Why is there such a variety of life forms on Earth? Conversely, why are there so many similarities between life forms on Earth? What defines the human species?

None of these questions can be answered in a satisfactory answer without reference to sex. Plants have flowers because sexual selection helps produce diversity, which improves survival odds. Plants bribe more mobile creatures into carrying around their sex cells (pollen), paying the bribe in the form of nectar. Animals often form pairs to ease the burden of parenting. Sexual dimorphism is reflective of differing investment costs in reproduction between sexes, as well as the way in which sexual selection can drive evolutionary development. Sexual reproduction has contributed to biological diversity, and yet the fact that many organisms need to perform the same basic tasks explains some of their similarity. Humans are the set of organisms that can mate and produce fertile offspring with one another.

Any understanding of nature that excludes sex is sure to be terribly impoverished. As such, it seems foolish to delay telling children about it until they themselves are starting to reach sexual maturity. It seems much better for it to be a fact of life they have learned accurate things about all along.

Shaving methods

I have previously mentioned Put This On as an interesting fashion-themed blog. It seems worth pointing out that their fourth video ‘Grooming‘ is full of what I consider bad advice.

They suggest that the proper way to shave is to use shaving soap, a badger hair brush, and an old-fashioned razor. This is dangerous, takes forever, and involves terrorizing badgers.

You are much better off getting some shaving oil (like the kind sold by King of Shaves) and a modern razor like the Mach3. Shaving oil doesn’t hide your skin, so you are less likely to cut yourself, and a couple of drops per day is all that is required. It is quick, cheap, safe, and vegan-friendly.

Georgia’s drug courts

Ira Glass recently produced an especially interesting episode of This American Life, talking about a particular drug court in the United States: Very Tough Love.

One potential advantage of the fiscal mess states like Canada and the United States have gotten themselves into is that it might help drive the advancement of more sensible drug policies. Our current approach is excessively punitive, fails to respect the sovereignty of the individual over their body, and is needlessly costly and destructive.

Breast-obsessed journalism

One definite issue with The Economist is that they can be somewhat sexist at times. Writing one obituary to a pair of breasts might be excusable. Writing a second is excessive, especially if you go on to mention them in a third weeks later.

Back in 2004, they even commented on their tastes:

The Economist, apparently, had more frontal nudity in its photographs than all the other magazines combined. When it came to “partial breast exposure”, it was at the top of the league. Particularly curious to the authors was our use of sexual content to illustrate stories on topics such as finance and technology. A photograph of three bikini-clad beauty contestants, used to illustrate a story on financial regulation, with the caption “Pick your regulator”, was both emblematic and problematic.

It’s probably time to give it a rest.

Will my vote matter?

Previously, I created a flowchart for use in voting in Canadian elections. It occurred to me today that it could be interesting to elaborate the concept into a website.

The site would allow people to enter their riding and rank their preferences for either local candidates or parties. It could then estimate the odds that their vote will make a difference they care about. For instance, if someone strongly prefers Party X to Party Y, and both candidates have a shot at winning in that person’s riding, then their vote is relatively likely to matter. By contrast, if someone hates both Party A and Party B equally, and one of their candidates is basically certain to win, then that person’s vote is relatively unlikely to matter.

There are different possible methodologies for the site. For instance, it could be based entirely on past election results, entirely on polling data, or on some combination of the two.

In circumstances where a person is told that their vote is unlikely to matter – for instance, if they prefer a party with minority support in every riding – the website could direct the person to more information on electoral reform and alternative electoral systems like the various kinds of proportional representation.

Unsurprisingly, this is one of those ideas that falls into the “things that may be interesting to discuss, but which I do not have the time to actually do” category.

Warning labels for booze

According to a study in the British Medical Journal, alcohol could be responsible for 10% of cancer in men and 3% in women. The scientists performing the study examined data from eight European countries. Reporting on the study, the CBC raised the question of whether there should be warning labels on alcoholic beverages.

I think there should be. They should warn about the risk of addiction, about damage to unborn children, and about other well-documented risks. These days, there are warning labels on everything from plastic bags (choking hazard!) to coffee cups (this beverage is extremely hot!). When governments put warning labels on some things with long-term health consequences, it implies that anything without such a label is considered safe by the government, or at least substantially safer than the things that do bear warnings. Given that alcohol is one of the most lethal drugs consumed by human beings, along with tobacco, it just makes sense that there be warning labels there too.

I think it’s absurd that Canada is considering putting warning labels on beer to alert people of the presence of wheat, but not considering putting on labels advising that if you drink enough of the stuff, it could kill you in a matter of hours.

P.S. Non-alcoholic beer can be a good option for those who enjoy beer, but want to avoid alcohol for whatever reason.

Don’t emulate the US on health

On CBC’s The Current the other day, there was a panel discussion about health care costs and Canada’s system. Partly, it was a response to a recent article by David Dodge and Richard Dion. They basically say that health care in Canada is going to get too expensive, and lists some possible actions to respond to that.

One action that is mentioned by them and others is to more closely emulate the United States by having more of a private health care system. It seems to me that the point that should be stressed in response to that is that the United States has a poor health care system, particularly when it comes to value for money. Private insurers paying private health care providers does little to reduce the serious economic externalities that exist in relation to health care. The US system also does poorly on objective measures like life expectancy and infant mortality, especially when considered in terms of outcomes per dollars spent. The weird hybrid character of the US system – with insurance tied to jobs and adults with pre-existing conditions barred from new coverage – also produces significant economic inefficiencies, as people risk losing the health care along with their jobs and never being able to secure coverage again.

Ultimately, the mechanism for controlling health care costs is rationing. We cannot afford to give every drug and treatment to everybody, since we could theoretically spend an infinite amount of money on each citizen. What we can do is fund those interventions that are justified by the degree to which they extend and improve a person’s life. The super rich will always be able to afford to buy a superior quality of care out of pocket – and they can do so perfectly easily outside Canada. For our society as a whole, however, our health system should be focused on producing the best outcome possible for the greatest number of people at a reasonable cost.

Careful on your bikes everyone!

The weather is starting to get nice, but I am wary of breaking out my bicycle.

9 months and 22 days ago, I hit a pothole on my bicycle, flew forward over the handlebars, crashed into the pavement, and broke my collarbone. If I had landed differently, I might have broken my neck. As it was, the recovery was long and difficult and I am still not quite at 100%. This is my third serious bicycle accident in Ottawa. Back in November 2007, a turning car forced me to brake urgently on Rideau Street and made me fly over my handlebars. Another time, a turning black pickup truck actually hit me, as I was headed up Somerset Street.

Cyclists like to pretend otherwise, but cycling in the city is dangerous. Even without the menace of cars, you can kill yourself by hitting a pothole, going over a railing, or getting your wheel caught and being thrown into traffic.

Friends and family members who cycle, please be careful! Wear lights and reflective clothes at night. Avoid the temptation to talk on the phone or listen to music while cycling. Even with a headset on, holding a conversation is as poor an influence on your reaction time as being drunk.