As you may have noticed, I haven't posted anything new for a week. This is because I've been away at a music institute where I have very limited access to computers. I will be at the institute until July 1st, so I probably won't be able to post anything until then.
After July first, I will of course return to my regular blogging duties. Thanks!
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Ahmadinejad
According to a report in The Guardian, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is likely to be defeated in tomorrow's election by the 'moderate green' Mir Hossein Mousavi.
As long as the vote isn't rigged, experts are predicting that Mousavi will win by a fairly large margin. Iranians are apparently growing increasingly dissatisfied with Ahmadinedjad, which has also lead to fears of civil unrest if he were somehow to keep his job.
Mousavi is neither a saint nor a liberator, but he is quite significantly to the lef of Ahmadinejad and has pledged to increase personal freedoms.
Wouldn't it be ironic if, after being threatened by the Americans, condemned by the UN security council and attacked by most of the planet, Ahmadinejad were removed by the people of Iran. It just goes to show how, often, the greatest antidote is time.
As long as the vote isn't rigged, experts are predicting that Mousavi will win by a fairly large margin. Iranians are apparently growing increasingly dissatisfied with Ahmadinedjad, which has also lead to fears of civil unrest if he were somehow to keep his job.
Mousavi is neither a saint nor a liberator, but he is quite significantly to the lef of Ahmadinejad and has pledged to increase personal freedoms.
Wouldn't it be ironic if, after being threatened by the Americans, condemned by the UN security council and attacked by most of the planet, Ahmadinejad were removed by the people of Iran. It just goes to show how, often, the greatest antidote is time.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Gripe Porcine
Selon un reportage du Monde, l'Organisation Mondiale de la Santé sera vraisemblablement obligée de faire passer au stade 6 le niveau d'alerte autour de la pandémie de grippe A (H1N1).
D'après les données du Monde, il y aurait jusqu'à maintenant 21 940 cas confirmés de grippe A, dont 125 mortels, dans 69 pays. Le passage au stade 6 signifierait que le virus se propage dans au moins deux régions différentes du monde, ce qui en ferait la première pandémie du 21ème siècle.
Le stade 6 est le niveau d'alerte le plus élevé dont dispse l'OMS. Pourtant, comme nous l'avons tous constaté, la grippe A n'est plus une menace immédiate. Le virus tue très peu de ses victimes, et si une mutation qui le rendrait plus meurtrier n'est pas à exclure, aucune n'a été observée jusqu'à présent.
A mon avis, il faudrait que l'organisation revoie la définition des niveaux d'alertes pour tenir compte non seulement de la propagation du virus mais aussi du taux de mortalié. Le passage au niveau d'alterte maximal devrait être un événement rare réservé à des crises immédiates comme, par exemple, la grippe espagnole. Il faut que "niveau d'alterte six" soit synonyme de "danger de mort pour tous".
En classant la grippe porcine (grippe A) de la même façon qu'elle classerait la grippe espagnole, l'OMS induit les observateurs en erreur. Lorsque la prochaine grippe meurtrière arrivera, beaucoup de gens refuseront peut-être, en pensant à la grippe porcine, de prendre la menace au sérieux.
D'après les données du Monde, il y aurait jusqu'à maintenant 21 940 cas confirmés de grippe A, dont 125 mortels, dans 69 pays. Le passage au stade 6 signifierait que le virus se propage dans au moins deux régions différentes du monde, ce qui en ferait la première pandémie du 21ème siècle.
Le stade 6 est le niveau d'alerte le plus élevé dont dispse l'OMS. Pourtant, comme nous l'avons tous constaté, la grippe A n'est plus une menace immédiate. Le virus tue très peu de ses victimes, et si une mutation qui le rendrait plus meurtrier n'est pas à exclure, aucune n'a été observée jusqu'à présent.
A mon avis, il faudrait que l'organisation revoie la définition des niveaux d'alertes pour tenir compte non seulement de la propagation du virus mais aussi du taux de mortalié. Le passage au niveau d'alterte maximal devrait être un événement rare réservé à des crises immédiates comme, par exemple, la grippe espagnole. Il faut que "niveau d'alterte six" soit synonyme de "danger de mort pour tous".
En classant la grippe porcine (grippe A) de la même façon qu'elle classerait la grippe espagnole, l'OMS induit les observateurs en erreur. Lorsque la prochaine grippe meurtrière arrivera, beaucoup de gens refuseront peut-être, en pensant à la grippe porcine, de prendre la menace au sérieux.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Dear Leader II
According to reports, North-Korea’s self-styled Dear Leader Kim Jong-il is preparing to hand over power to his youngest son, Kim Jong-un. The regime’s obsession with secrecy means that there are no current pictures of Jong-un, but Kim Jong-il’s former personal Japanese Sushi chef claimed in a book that Jong-un “has superb physical gifts, is a big drinker and never admits defeat”.
The one thing that we are fairly certain of is that Kim Jong-un spent a few years studying at the International School in Berne. Former students describe him in a positive light. David Gatley, the director of the school between 1993 to 2004, is quoted as saying that Jong-un “ wasn't a show off, and he often would get involved in separating two friends who were fighting. He had a lot of friends among the children of American diplomats. He went on school trips. He once went to Eastern Europe on a trip organized by the drama department. We had a lot of trouble getting him a visa.”
How does it work? How can someone who studied in Switzerland, who became friends with American diplomats and who was apparently good a mediating peace between classmates return to North-Korea and take a leadership position in an oppressive regime?
Clearly, Kim Jong-un is a man who could have become a perfectly respectable Swiss citizen. Had he been born in different circumstances, there is nothing to suggest that he would have descended into violence. As his former principal and classmates tell us, he was not genetically programmed to be a remorseless tyrant.
The story of Kim Jong-il shows just how important it is to be raised in the right environment. We’re all capable of doing terrible things if we are manipulated or trained to do so. We must stay vigilant, because even good kids like Kim Jong-il can be turned into monsters.
The one thing that we are fairly certain of is that Kim Jong-un spent a few years studying at the International School in Berne. Former students describe him in a positive light. David Gatley, the director of the school between 1993 to 2004, is quoted as saying that Jong-un “ wasn't a show off, and he often would get involved in separating two friends who were fighting. He had a lot of friends among the children of American diplomats. He went on school trips. He once went to Eastern Europe on a trip organized by the drama department. We had a lot of trouble getting him a visa.”
How does it work? How can someone who studied in Switzerland, who became friends with American diplomats and who was apparently good a mediating peace between classmates return to North-Korea and take a leadership position in an oppressive regime?
Clearly, Kim Jong-un is a man who could have become a perfectly respectable Swiss citizen. Had he been born in different circumstances, there is nothing to suggest that he would have descended into violence. As his former principal and classmates tell us, he was not genetically programmed to be a remorseless tyrant.
The story of Kim Jong-il shows just how important it is to be raised in the right environment. We’re all capable of doing terrible things if we are manipulated or trained to do so. We must stay vigilant, because even good kids like Kim Jong-il can be turned into monsters.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Outliers
Those of you who have read Malcolm Gladwell's latest bestseller, Outliers, will remember the passage at the beginning of the books where he shows that a disproportionate number of all-star junior hockey players are born in the first months of the year. Gladwell attributes this to the fact that slightly older players have a slight size advantage as children and are therefore more likely to get into competitive leagues with better coaches and more hours of practice.
This seems like a truly astonishing statistic, but it's also slightly misleading. While it's true that an overwhelming proportion of top junior hockey players are born in the first months of the year, this is not the case at the top of the NHL. This year, for instance, the top three scorers in the NHL were born respectively in July, August and September. Wayne Gretzky was born on January 21st but Mario Lemieux was born on October 5fth. Really, among the top, top players, among the best of the best, there doesn't seem to be any clustering of brithdates.
Gladwell's book is about Outliers, so it's a little bit misleading for him to study junior hockey players -who aren't really outliers- rather than NHL stars.
This seems like a truly astonishing statistic, but it's also slightly misleading. While it's true that an overwhelming proportion of top junior hockey players are born in the first months of the year, this is not the case at the top of the NHL. This year, for instance, the top three scorers in the NHL were born respectively in July, August and September. Wayne Gretzky was born on January 21st but Mario Lemieux was born on October 5fth. Really, among the top, top players, among the best of the best, there doesn't seem to be any clustering of brithdates.
Gladwell's book is about Outliers, so it's a little bit misleading for him to study junior hockey players -who aren't really outliers- rather than NHL stars.
Don't be fooled
Some of you may have read that the Conservative negative ads have worked. This seems to be the general media consensus, and it is all based on a poll which can be consulted here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-a-tims-man-but-ignatieff-inspires/article1161277/
However, there's a serious snag. While the poll does show that Harper is perceived as more patriotic than Ignatieff, there are no earlier polls to compare current results with. In other words, there's no before and after; just the after.
However, there's a serious snag. While the poll does show that Harper is perceived as more patriotic than Ignatieff, there are no earlier polls to compare current results with. In other words, there's no before and after; just the after.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Eh bien voilà. Après plusieurs semaines de spéculation, le Ministère des finances a avoué que le déficit fédéral atteindrait les 50 milliards de dollars cette année. C'est 20 milliards de plus qu'avait annoncé Jim Flaherty dans son dernier budget.
20 millards! Voilà une bien grosse somme d'argent. Mais que signifie-t-elle dans le contexte économique actuel? Y a-t-il vraiment matière à s'inquiéter?
Oui et non.
Pour le gouvernement canadien, 20 milliards de dollars, ce n'est pas une si grosse somme. Rappelons-nous que les gouvernements libéraux faisaient souvent des erreurs de dix à 20 milliards de dollars dans leurs prévisions budgétaires. Évidemment, dans leur cas, il s'agissait de surplus et non pas de déficits...
20 milliards de dollars, c'est non seulement une somme d'argent assez modeste pour un gouvernement, mais c'est aussi une somme que le Canada peut se permettre de dépenser (voire même de gaspiller). La dette canadienne, calculée en fonction du PIB national, est la plus petite du G8. Grâce à 15 ans de prospérité et gestion compétente du trésor public, le gouvernement du Canada a les moyens de dépenser de l'argent.
Ce dont on devrait s'inquiéter, ce n'est pas d'avoir une dette de cinquante milliards à rembourser mais d'avoir encore aux commandes le gouvernement qui nous a mis dans cette situation. Soyons précis, le gouvernement conservateur n'est pas responsable de la crise économique et il avait raison de mettre les finances du pays dans le rouge pour relancer l'économie. Mais en baissant la TPS de deux points, le gouvernement s'est privé d'environ 10 milliards de dollars de revenus annuels, ce qui, en deux ans, donne notre nombre magique: 20 milliards.
20 millards! Voilà une bien grosse somme d'argent. Mais que signifie-t-elle dans le contexte économique actuel? Y a-t-il vraiment matière à s'inquiéter?
Oui et non.
Pour le gouvernement canadien, 20 milliards de dollars, ce n'est pas une si grosse somme. Rappelons-nous que les gouvernements libéraux faisaient souvent des erreurs de dix à 20 milliards de dollars dans leurs prévisions budgétaires. Évidemment, dans leur cas, il s'agissait de surplus et non pas de déficits...
20 milliards de dollars, c'est non seulement une somme d'argent assez modeste pour un gouvernement, mais c'est aussi une somme que le Canada peut se permettre de dépenser (voire même de gaspiller). La dette canadienne, calculée en fonction du PIB national, est la plus petite du G8. Grâce à 15 ans de prospérité et gestion compétente du trésor public, le gouvernement du Canada a les moyens de dépenser de l'argent.
Ce dont on devrait s'inquiéter, ce n'est pas d'avoir une dette de cinquante milliards à rembourser mais d'avoir encore aux commandes le gouvernement qui nous a mis dans cette situation. Soyons précis, le gouvernement conservateur n'est pas responsable de la crise économique et il avait raison de mettre les finances du pays dans le rouge pour relancer l'économie. Mais en baissant la TPS de deux points, le gouvernement s'est privé d'environ 10 milliards de dollars de revenus annuels, ce qui, en deux ans, donne notre nombre magique: 20 milliards.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)