Fraidy dogs

More afraid of the microwave than she is of Andrew Jackson…
I think Abbey learned much of her fear behaviour from Sage.

 

Sage’s fears include: the fire alarm, the vacuum, the blender, Eric’s shaver, the battery recharger, the electric toothbrush, mama’s craft supplies (not even electric), the IKEA tool kit, and any word beginning with the letter Z. She had a bad first experience at the groomer as a pup.

Facebook Causes…

I was looking for information about Facebook’s Causes application today. At the bottom of the search results page, Google shared a few other opinions about what Facebook causes:

Tracking Abbey

I was creeped out when Eric bought a GPS watch this week– I simply find tracking, and especially the sharing of gathered info with third parties, just plain disturbing. But I managed to find a fun use for the watch anyway: we strapped it to Abbey and mapped her off-leash route around the park. That might throw off the CIA or whoever else is aggregating GPS watch data…

Anyway, you can watch Abbey’s path in this video:

And view Abbey’s pace and speed statistics:

Abbey’s pace
Abbey’s speed



Stay tuned for a comparison with Sage later this week.

Who believes it?

Did you watch CNN’s Western Republican Presidential Debate in October? Don’t worry, this is only a test.

Questions

1. Who said “I’m running for office for Pete’s sake! I can’t have illegals working on my property!” ?

2. When prompted to stay on topic, which candidate told the moderator “You get to ask the questions and I get to answer them like I want to” ?

3. Who “work[s] on the assumption that government is not really capable of managing anything, so you shouldn’t put that much trust in the government” ?

4. Who clarified flip-flopping by saying “I supported the concept of TARP, but then when this administration used discretion and did a whole lot of things that the American people didn’t like, I was then against it.” ?

5. Who would be “really worried” if another candidate claimed that nothing in that person’s faith affected their judgement, asking “how can you have judgement if you have no faith, and how can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?” ?

6. Regarding immigration, who believes that “there is a very real issue with magnets in this country” and that “anchor babies… is an issue we don’t have to deal with with the Constitution… we can deal with legislatively.” ?

7. Who claims that “there’s a lot that’s going on that’s eroding our religious freedom, that’s eroding the traditional values of marriage and family…” and that “… we keep running roughshod over the fact that the family in America and faith in America is being crushed by the courts and by our government, and someone needs to stand up for those institutions.” ?

8. Who claims that “we have enough weapons to blow up the world 20-25 times. We have more weapons than all the other countries put together essentially, and we want to spend more and more. You can’t cut a penny? This is why we’re at an impasse.” ?

9. Who believes a “virtual defense zone” with “strategic fencing”, “a lot of boots on the ground” and “predator drones” is the best way to defend the US-Mexico border?

10. Who thinks that “we should look to Iraq and Libya to reimburse [the United States] for part of what we have done to liberate these nations.” ?

11. Who claims the US “has an administration that is killing jobs because they want to move us to a green energy” (sic) ?

12. Who “would absolutely not cut one penny out of military spending” because “the first order of the federal government… is [to] protect us.” ?

13. Who explains that “the idea that a bunch of historically illiterate politicians who have no sophistication about national security trying to make a numerical decision about the size of the defense budget tells you everything you need to know about the bankruptcy of the current elite in this country, in BOTH parties… The fact is, to say ‘I’m going to put the security of the United States up against some arbitrary number’ is suicidally stupid.” ?

14. Who believes the solution to the nuclear waste problem is to “let the free market work, and on that basis we let the places that are geologically safe according to science, and where the people say the deal’s a good one, will decide where we put this stuff…” (sic) ?

15. Who thinks Occupy Wall Street protesters should instead be “out in front of the White House taking out their frustrations” because “Wall Street didn’t put in failed economic policies” and their anger is “directed at the wrong place.” ?

16. Who believes that “rights don’t come in bunches, they come as individuals, they come from a god…” ?

17. Who disagrees that “the country is founded on the individual” and believes instead that “the basic building block of a society is not the individual, it’s the family– that’s the basic unit of society.” ?

18. Who claims to be the first candidate to sign a written pledge stating “by a date certain I will build a double-walled fence… along the entire border” [between the US and Mexico] ?

19. Who claims to have “always been against amnesty” for illegal immigrants ?


Answers

(notes refer to YouTube videos entitled “Republican Debate October 18

Parts 1-7 + time of quote)

1. Mitt Romney (PT3 11:20)

2. Rick Perry (PT4 7:58)

3. Ron Paul (PT5 9:20)

4. Herman Cain (PT5 4:40)

5. Newt Gingrich (PT5 14:20)

6. Michele Bachmann (PT4 9:35)

7. Rick Santorum (PT4 10:25)

8. Ron Paul (PT6 11:00)

9. Rick Perry (PT3 13:55)

10. Michele Bachmann (PT7 0:30)

11. Ron Paul (PT4 8:42)

12. Rick Santorum (PT6 9:30)

13. Newt Gingrich (PT6 5:30)

14. Mitt Romney (PT5 0:00)

15. Herman Cain (PT5 6:49)

16. Ron Paul  (PT4 11:30)

17. Rick Santorum (PT3 10:33)

18. Michele Bachmann (PT4 0:06)

19. Rick Perry (PT4 10:25)

GOP presidential debates

I stumbled upon the New Hampshire debates live on the CNN website last night. I couldn’t resist taking notes and sorting the candidates in order of preference. Notice my list has an inverse relationship with probability of winning the nomination. Note also that my opinions are not supported by research.

1. Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaul.com/
“Our national security is not enhanced by our presence [in Afghanistan]”. The only candidate to mention the cost of war and the “military-industrial complex”. Genuine, not schmoozy. I’m just surprised he didn’t explain how gay marriage relates to the Federal Reserve, since everything else does. Maybe next time.

2. Herman Cain
http://www.hermancain.com/
Charismatic, sometimes stumbly. In it “for the children and grandchildren”. When asked why he said he wouldn’t be comfortable with Muslims in his administration, he said he was originally thinking only of the “Muslims who want to kill us”. Not a smooth answer, but likely good enough for Republicans.

3. Newt Gingrich

http://www.newt.org/
Smarter than most and not schmoozy. Wasn’t acting like he had to prove anything. To my surprise, he used the words “humane” and “solution” in reference to immigration and ranted against media and politicians who frame complex questions with simple, polarized options. (Note the awesome domain name).

4. Rick Santorum
http://www.ricksantorum.com/
Bland, ordinary terrorism-means-we-need-military-bases-around-the-world-to-be-safe kind of Republican. After reading about past controversies on Wikipedia this morning, I now wish I’d paid more attention to his response on the gay marriage question, which 5 out of 7 of these candidates believe should be decided by a federal not a state law, though each ranted profusely about the federal government getting involved in absolutely everything else. Still a mystery to me. (Note his website ranks 9th in Google when searching on his name– a very bad sign.)

5. Michele Bachmann

http://www.michelebachmann.com/
Like Palin, but with a brain. Fluent about taxes, economic issues, and in defense of the Tea Party. Stuttery on gay marriage and unconvincing on foreign affairs. Keen competitor for the Most Pro-Life award, which I didn’t know people compiled CVs for. Less so than Pawlenty, but occasionally broke out into biography. Babbly and sometimes nervous-sounding.

6. Mitt Romney
http://www.mittromney.com/
Belligerent, yet with strong undertones of ass-kissing. Long-winded and babbly, yet smoothly schmoozy. Leading the sub-competition for Who Hates Obama The Most.

7. Tim Pawlenty

http://www.timpawlenty.com/
A smug, babbling, fear-mongering, ass-kissing egotist. Used the debate as a platform for biographical monologues. After claiming Palin was “qualified to be President”, I’ve categorized him as both the supreme brown noser as well as clinical idiot. He is pure politician, in the cynical understanding of the term.

Signs, signs

Lawson sign at the University of Guelph

It’s already been a few weeks since we went to hear Elizabeth May campaign at the University of Guelph. I hesitated to go because the “Get Out and Vote” event was targeted at students, but since it’s not every day party leaders are in town I changed my mind and dragged Eric out with me.

The crowd was small and the meeting was short. An organizer of U of G’s student vote mob discussed being ejected from a Conservative rally.

It’s disturbing that you may not be allowed to hear your Prime Minister speak if you don’t belong to his political party, yet unwanted Conservative campaign material can legally show up in your mailbox at any time. Today I received this prize:

Campaign material targeting uncooperative social outcasts and people who can't read full sentences.
Remember when political instability used to make the world a warmer, brighter place?

Second up, John Lawson explained what motivated him to run as the Green candidate for Guelph and the need to move beyond your comfort zone when advocating for your beliefs. The comment stuck with me and I later decided to volunteer at the local Green Party office. However, I didn’t want to knock on doors, call people, or otherwise behave intrusively (very narrow comfort zone). I guess in the end they couldn’t find any tasks to match my skill set because after one phone conversation, no one ever called me back. (Or maybe I just sounded Harperishly uncooperative?) Note to self: Remember to make a list of Factors Which Cause Me Grave Demotivation.

Uni student crowd at a Green rally

May spoke about “voter suppression” as a tactic used by American Republicans, and now also by Harper Conservatives. I’ve since heard the term thrown about by Ignatieff and in the Globe and Mail. So while anti-democracy is trending, I transferred all my unvolunteered excitement and voted on the first day of advanced polling.

Here’s a brief and incoherent video of the rally (snippets only because the ‘youths’ kept walking in front of me):

Broken compass

In a moment of confused weakness and boredom (I’ve been playing housewife since my work contract ended two weeks ago), I took the stupid CBC “Vote Compass” survey. I already know who I’m voting for, but I wanted to know who a survey would suggest. Here are a few examples of the problems I had with the questions:

Q7: “The environmental damage caused by the Alberta oil sands industry is exaggerated”
This question is asking about media coverage, not environmental damage.

Q26: “Quebec should become an independent state”
Agreed. But only if First Nations sovereignty is recognized as well.

Anyway, I got through the questions by answering “I don’t know” a lot and was surprised by these results:

Disappointing survey results.

So even though I map equally close to the Bloc, and even though I answered that there was close to zero chance I’d vote Liberal, and despite not having an opinion on half the questions, I’m told my views are closest to the Liberals. Yuck. (Next I did research on my “I don’t knows”, redid the survey and tested positive for NDP. Still not my actual choice, but closer.)

I thought all this was just ho-hum whatever until I read  “The CBC isn’t a news company anymore. It’s a campaign team” by Ezra Levant:

And — surprise, surprise — the Liberal Party is the default setting if you are at all wishy-washy about anything. So, Vote Compass helps you out.

By telling you to vote Liberal.

Try it out yourself. If you answer neutrally or “no opinion” to every question, it tells you you’re for Michael Ignatieff.

When I redid it and answered “I don’t know” to everything the results sounded metaphysical:

Closest and furthest to nothing.

One last chance, I answered “Neither agree nor disagree” except when the middle option said “About the same as now”, in which case I selected “I don’t know”.

Tada:

Neutral = Liberal.

I’m not convinced this is a conspiracy. It might actually be true that people who just don’t care are more likely to vote Liberal.