Faded Licence Plate Numbers Are Illegal in Ontario

I recently got pulled over in my car on the 401, at night, for having plates that were unreadable.

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic323.html

The story actually goes back a few weeks, as I noticed that the numbers were fading, but I thought still legible.  I bought some blue paint to touch them up, but didn't use it as I found out this practice is also illegal.  And it was very cold outside.  Then about ten days ago I was driving at night on the 401 and noticed an SUV tailgating me, like about 2 meters behind me.  I sped up a little and the SUV fell back, so I ignored it.  Then I started to pass a large truck, and the same SUV was back again, tailgating.  Instead of doing anything stupid, I slowed down a little, got behind the truck then signalled to pull in behind the truck and let the tailgater go through.  Instead the tailgater stuck right behind me.  And then it turned on all these flashing lights, that's when I saw it was actually a police car.  So I pulled over on the side of the road.  He came over to inform me my plates were unreadable, and that it was a $200 (or so) fine, but this was just a warning.  He suggested that a new pair of plates was only $20, and I should get some.

When I got home a few days later, I went to the licence office, and was told the plates were actually $23, but I'm not going to quibble over $3.  But I had to return the old plates immediately or I would have to pay for my full registration all over again.  Since I had already waited in line for 15 minutes, and because the clerk told me I could bring in the old plates without lining up again, I went out to remove the plates in the snowy and cold parking lot.  The old plates had been there for 8 years, so the screws were stuck, and I broke my cheap screwdriver.  So I drove to Canadian Tire nearby and bought a pair of Vise Grip pliers, and successfully removed the plates.  I went back into the office and paid for my new plates and they tossed my old ones in a special box.  I then of course had to mount my new plates back on the car in the parking lot before I could drive away.

Finally everything was back to normal, and I had new unfaded plates.  But I did notice my mother's car had much older plates that were not faded.  Her car is parked outdoors like mine, with the back plate facing the sun, also like mine (the front plates did not fade).  She got her car in 1997, so that's 17 years, but the plates were from her previous car, so add another 6 years.  My faded plates were  new in 1997.  I think there was a bad batch of paint when I got my plates.

http://www.wheels.ca/feature/when-police-stop-you-for-faded-plates-its-time-to-get-new-ones/
Quote:

"Several years ago, in a similarly themed column in Wheels - Ont. Min of Transportation admitted that approx. 10-15 years ago they did, in fact, have a period when substandard paint was allowed to be used on what then were the early reflective licence plates. (if my memory serves correctly - at that time licence plates only contained 6 characters: 3 letters and 3 numbers)." 

French Laws and Delilah

This morning I came across an interesting (to me) story of the French language laws in Quebec.  As most people in Canada probably know, businesses in Quebec, by law, must cater to French speaking customers.  In other words, signage must be in French, promotional materials etc. must be in French.  Other languages are optional.

I do not consider myself an expert on this law, as I live in Ontario, but I know many English speaking Canadians view it as an infringement on their rights, and they do love to come up with stories of the evil Language Police hunting down innocent store owners and driving them out of business with onerous requirements to change their signage.

This is the story I saw this morning.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/quebec-store-owner-ordered-to-translate-facebook-page-to-french-1.2553262

A sweet charming woman, being harassed over her Facebook page that advertised the store in English, but not French.

Whether or not this case has merits remains to be settled, but let's just use some critical thinking for a moment.  Eva Cooper, the store owners says

“It’s not like I’ve ever not followed the law with my businesses on the Quebec side.”

I assume it is a very easy thing to change the Facebook page (well, anyway my Facebook page is easy to change, but then I don't know if she needs to hire a consultant to make the change for her).  So there should be no problem.  But I noticed the name of the store is "Delilah", and Delilah is famous in the bible as being one of the most deceptive women in a book with many stories of deceptive women.  So I did a little fact checking myself.  On Google, I could not find any record of Eva Cooper having a previous run-in with the Language Police.  Then I had the idea of checking Google Maps street view, to see if the signage on the store was bilingual before the CBC story was filmed.  On street view, I saw a photo of the store just before it opened, with two large signs on each side of the door announcing that Delilah was coming soon.  Both signs were in English.  Is Eva Cooper being deceptive, or did she simply forget, or maybe nobody complained, so it does not count. Or maybe the law only comes into effect the moment the store opens, I just don't know. But I didn't see any French language signs, and two English-only signs.

Anyway, I am not arguing or explaining the language laws in this particular blog, but it's more about honesty in reporting and story telling.  CBC made this woman look like she was not only in complete compliance with the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law.  Yet she was being asked to change her Facebook page.  Google street view says different. What is the real truth?

Lower picture off Google Maps (9 chemin scott, chelsea qc)

Why O Why Does God Need to Fight Darwin?

I have heard of religious people feeling they are in conflict with science, even oppressed by scientists.

http://www.darwinismthegreatestlieinhistory.com/

A movie called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" starring Ben Stein states part of the argument of religious extremists.

Religious argument
1. Scientists are shunning anyone who believes in the Bible, and kicking them out of universities
2. Darwinism (a scientific theory that conflicts with the bible) in particular has led to mankind's greatest immorality: the Nazi Holocaust of World Wart II

I don't believe this supposed conflict is doing anyone any good, and that it is a "made up" conflict that serves mostly the purpose of the religious extremists.

If you are an atheist, or a Christian of mainstream religions, you may think it is impossible for the religious extremists to actually benefit from attacking science.  After all, science has given us modern medicine, airplanes, cars, heated houses, refrigerators, telephones, computers, and other fancy stuff.  But there is still an advantage to be gained from attacking science.  For example, the "Flat Earth" movement from about a hundred years ago did the same thing.  A few charismatic leaders arose, and began speaking tours, and writing pamphlets casting doubt on the theory that the Earth was round.  Even though the round Earth was a well established fact, these Flat-Earthers attracted a large and growing following.  It got to the point that some actual scientists became worried enough to try debating the point.  But it didn't actually do much good.  In time, the Flat Earth movement gradually faded, although as of 2012 it had about 400 members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society#Modern_activities

We all know about conspiracy theories, and how they can attract followings, like the "Truther" movement that argued the destruction of 9/11 was an inside job, not the result of planes crashing.

I see a similarity between  the "Young Earth Creationists" and these other conspiracy groups, although I feel that Creationists are a much stronger movement with more adherents.  The question is why have they got so many adherents, how did it grow to be such a large movement?

I think we can start by looking at the history of Creationism.  In 1800, almost all Christians were creationists.  but it was not a cult of contrarians, it was simply mainstream thought with no serious challengers among Christians or Jews.  Even Darwin started off as a creationist.  Then in the mid 1800's, Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, which seemed to defy the traditional story of the Bible.  Incidentally, this was not much different from the earlier discovery of the round earth, and the fact of the Earth going around the Sun instead of vice versa. Both those theories seemed to defy the word of the Holy Bible. But while the theories of the flat Earth the the sun going around the Earth both gradually faded, Evolution came in for some stiffer opposition which is still going strong today in the USA.

The particular historical circumstances that made evolution such a battleground may be connected to the US civil war.  One clue is that the centre of Creationism today is still in the Southern US states that supported slavery.  Another clue is that the civil war took place around the same time as Darwin's theory of Evolution.  A third, and more complicated clue, is that an argument of the Civil War was whether or not slavery was the will of God. In the debate about whether or not God accepted slavery, one key point hinged on whether or not every word of the Bible was true.  Because in the Bible, it clearly states that you are allowed to own slaves and allowed to beat them nearly to death. Anti-slavery Christians had to downplay the importance of the literal interpretation of the Bible.  But southerners who supported slavery emphasized the literal truth of every word of the Bible, since it supported their cause of slavery.

Once the US Civil War was over, it seemed pointless to continue debating slavery, but a new bugaboo emerged for the Southern religions to attack with their belief in the concept of "Every word of the Bible is literally true".  The new bugaboo was Darwinism.  So for about a hundred years, a low level conflict continued, with the south fighting for "Biblical Creationism" while the rest of the world moved on to a general acceptance of evolution.  This  "Darwinism" debate found new life with the passing of civil rights laws for African-Americans, which forced all government schools to enroll black students.  Opposition to Darwin and Evolution became the way southern people could attack the government school system, and gave them non-racist excuses to keep their kids out of schools.

The Creationist vs. Darwinist debate took on a life of its own, with many people being able to make a good living off it, much like any of the other conspiracy theories.  But this time the argument had a religious element, a racist element, and a political element thrown in for good measure.

In the end, there is no need for people to give up their Bible to accept evolution.  The Catholic Church has done it already, so have other mainstream churches.  Even the strictest biblical literalists accept the idea that the Earth is round and orbits the sun.  And they also (I think) have given up on slavery, regardless of the words in the Holy Bible.  There is no need for a smackdown between God and Darwin.

Picture: http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/1504/the-life-and-lies-about-charles-darwin

The Difference Between Bushcraft Skills and Survival Skills

 Still socked in with snow, no relief in sight.  I try to avoid getting cabin madness fever by randomly searching the Internet for a knife to take on our camping trip this summer.  During my search I come across a curious new distinction.  There are some knives referred to as "Bushcraft" knives, and some referred to as "Survival" knives.  I would like to know the difference between them, wondering if this is just another example of over-specialization that we find in our society.

Bushcraft is the set of skills needed to survive in nature (i.e. the bush). Skills include firecraft, tracking, hunting, fishing, shelter building, the use of tools such as knives and axes, foraging, hand-carving wood, container construction from natural materials, and rope and twine-making, among others. (Wikipedia)

Survival skills are to help us survive a natural or man-made disaster.  Unlike bushcraft, the location is unknown.  That's because we do not know what the disaster might be.  So the disaster is often referred to simply as "SHTF", or "Shit hit the fan". You need to be prepared for any of the various possible SHTF scenarios.  That's why survivalists are often called "preppers", in that their main activity is preparing for the day the SHTF. After TSHTF, you may end up in a flooded area, or out in the bush or desert, in even your own home. Skills include first aid, finding water and food, "thinking clearly", self defence, and making the perfect "Bug out Bag" of stuff to grab quickly when TSHTF.  In Survival skills, the main thing that all preppers seem to agree on, is that when TSHTF, you will need to defend yourself against other humans (and possibly zombies) out there, trying to get your stuff or simply wanting to eat you.  There is a lot more emphasis on self defence in Survival than you find in Bushcraft.  So you will often find Preppers are accumulating guns and ammunition, while Bushcrafters may be more absorbed by trying to light fires by rubbing sticks together.

So after all this research, I find that bushcraft knives are designed more for whittling sticks, or making wooden spoons.  Survival knives are made for knife fights, for target throwing, and stabbing.  The same distinctions apply to survival axes vs. bushcraft axes.  So far, saws have not been divided into "Survival saws" vs. "Bushcraft saws".  That distinction may be coming one day, but the current school of thought has it that sawing off an attackers leg or arm is too slow to be an effective deterrent to all but the slowest zombies.  And those can be avoided by simply walking around them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_skills
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushcraft

Pictures: Some of bushcraft from Wikipedia, and one from this website: http://www.tengujutsu.com/page3.htm

The Harper Doctrine: A Talk at CIGI by John Ibbitson

Last night I attended a talk at CIGI in Waterloo by John Ibbitson http://www.cigionline.org/events/harper-doctrine-conservative-foreign-policy-revolution.

The title was The Harper Doctrine: A Conservative Foreign-Policy Revolution.  FYI: Harper is Canada's current Prime Minister, and the person responsible for changes in Canada's foreign policy in the last 7 years.

Although I consider John Ibbitson to be a conservative leaning  (http://withinacertaindistance.blogspot.ca/2012/06/someone-fire-john-ibbitson-please.html)  columnist, and it was -15c, I went anyway, as Mary Ann wanted to go.

My initial thought was that Harper has no original foreign policy.  He simply mimics the foreign policy of the right wing USA, especially Republicans, but to some extent the Democrats too.  For example, he matches the Republicans disdain for the UN, their dismantling of the Kyoto agreement, and their one-sided support for Israel.  He seems to want Canada to cease being a peacekeeper, and become a combat-hardened nation like the US, I assume to help them in  foreign wars.  He even uses the catch phrases of the Republicans like "we won't cut and run".

In his talk, Ibbitson started off by stating that he had come to the conclusion that there was no Harper doctrine and that anyway, doctrines are actually associated with superpowers.  Later on, he stated that Harper's love for Israel developed when he was a teenager, and was not simply a ploy to grab the Jewish vote.  And I assume he was trying to imply without actually coming out and saying it, that Harper was not necessarily copying US foreign policy. I still think that's debatable.

During the talk, Ibbitson took a big swipe at the Province of Quebec for it's newly proposed legislation banning religious garb while performing civil servant or government jobs.  According to Ibbitson, this is clearly a discriminatory practice, effectively banning religions from the teaching profession, hospitals, police etc.  I don't want to get onto a different track here, but I think there is a big difference between banning religions in government jobs and banning religious garb while on the job (and let's also remember religious garb in some cases includes the carrying of weapons).  I'm sure those religions, if they want to accommodate more secular, multicultural Canadian ways, can also find ways to modify their strict "dress codes" to allow their people to take government jobs. After all, look at the Catholic Church and how it finally allowed people to eat fish on Friday, after first making it optional on airplanes. Look at how some religions have abandoned the practice of honour killings (at least in Canada). Most of these religious dress codes are more cultural than a core religious values, but I can leave that for others to argue.  I'm not sure why Ibbitson thought he needed to bring it up, except to point out how Quebec was worse than the rest of Canada.

Ibbitson also talked about how the Conservatives had a strong and growing political coalition that now includes immigrants, the suburbs of most big Canadian cities, and the rural areas of Canada, with very strong support in the Western provinces (that are also still growing in population and influence).  He did not mention that most Canadian voters did not vote for Harper, and that in a true runoff election he would probably lose. From my own point of view, if not for the unfortunate left wing split between Liberals, Green, and NDP; the Conservatives would still be an opposition party.  And just because the west is growing does not mean that all westerners are extreme right wing conservatives like Harper.

In summary, Ibbitson referred to Canada's foreign policy from WW2 up to Harper in 2006, as "Laurentian" and Harper's foreign policy as "Conservative".  My own feeling is that the so-called "Laurentian" policy (a policy based on diplomacy, respect for the UN and world court, peacekeeping, and fairness to all) is more like a "Canadian" foreign policy, while Harper's policy is more like "mini-right wing USA" foreign policy, carried out by his puppet government supported by US oil companies and US evangelicals.  And an embarrassment to most Canadians.

So in the entire talk, which I will admit was fast paced, funny, and worth hearing, Ibbitson described Canada's political situation and foreign policy with the all the conservative assumptions and prejudices.  So it  was not necessarily a balanced view, and he never did mention how Harper's doctrine looks to be a copy of Bush's US foreign policy.  And none of the questions from the audience brought up the subject either. I suppose I shouldn't complain, as I had the opportunity to bring it up myself at the talk, but didn't.  I guess I prefer to write about it in a blog instead.

Starting Campfires

When I was growing up in Baie Comeau, we did not have all the rules to protect me that I now enjoy. And one of the things we used to do was start campfires.  I actually had some training in campfire building, so I suppose there was no real excuse for some of the things I did.  I guess I will start with the worst, and actually it didn't turn out too bad, as I did not burn down the entire town.

I decided to start a campfire in the forest near town.  Sounds bad already doesn't it?  Especially in Baie Comeau, a small northern community surrounded by combustible forests, which was nearly evacuated in the early fifties due to a massive forest fire that came within a couple of hundred yards of the house I grew up in.  And I guess I have doubly no excuse, as my father was a forest fire fighter, and I was in the Boy Scouts.  And the road leading out of town into the bush had one of those huge fire danger warning thermometers on it.  I didn't see it that day, as I built my fire inside the town limits.

So me and a few friends were stoking up this fire, which I didn't realize was right under a big spruce or fir tree.  But after the fire got going pretty good, there was this loud whoosh sound overhead, as the entire tree, probably about 20 ft tall, burst into flame all at once.  I don't remember exactly how we put it out, but no emergency fire crews were involved and the incident went no further.  I guess we must have put out our campfire with water, and then the tree, which was thankfully isolated a bit from the rest of the forest, burned itself out.

Many years later, I had three little boys of my own about 3-6 years old, and we were camping in an Ontario provincial park.  They were poking sticks into the fire, as people sometimes do, and of the sticks began to glow red at the tips.  They started waving them around, and just then a park ranger came by and put an end to this activity.  I think he muttered as he was leaving something about this is the most ridiculous thing he had ever seen.  Well, by my standards it wasn't even close.

Today I was researching methods of starting fires on the Internet, in preparation for our camping trip to Newfoundland this summer.  In particular, I was thinking that maybe I didn't really need to bring a 2 pound axe to make fires.  After all, we are never allowed to gather our own wood at regulation campgrounds.  The wood that is supplied is already cut to length and split.  My only job is to split it down to smaller sticks and supply kindling and a light of some sort.  You can actually do that with a large knife which weighs much less than 1 kg.

While I was watching videos of people using a knife to make kindling, I came across all kinds of interesting ideas.  For example I didn't know that you could use a saw to split wood.  Here's one of many videos about that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSOXU0rrqOM

I came across a huge variety of ways to start a fire.  Of course the cliched "rubbing two sticks together", which I have never done myself, unless they were matches.  There is another way involving a 9 volt battery touched to steel wool.  The shower of sparks from certain kinds of metal is a traditional favourite. Then of course, matches and Bic lighters.  Those are some of the ways of getting the first flame.  Next is the tinder, or what you set fire to first with the match or sparks.  Here I came upon another revelation.  Vaseline-soaked cotton balls are now very popular for tinder.  I understand why it would work, but when I was young we frowned on using artificial fuels to start the fire.  For example, pouring a gallon of gasoline on the fire would be a no-no.  And actually, I always thought the politically correct way to start a fire was with some birch bark and thin sticks.  What we always ended up using was scrap paper, and often it didn't burn hot enough to start the sticks on fire.  So the fire would flame out, which was embarrassing in scout camp partly because the big puff of smoke signalled everyone else that you fire starting attempt was a flop.  We used to have competitions, where we had to start the fire with only three matches.  If you could start it with one match, it was the perfect fire start, unless gasoline was involved.  But what about Vaseline?  Apparently it burns pretty good, and nobody has to know you are using petroleum products.  Then I found out that Cherry Chapstick works just as well, and so does Purelle hand sanitizer!

So I started to adjust my packing list for this summer's trip.  I may just take a knife instead of the axe, and save 700 grams in my camping bag.  And I'll add a small jar of Vaseline, but no cotton balls.  I figure I'll just poke the stick of kindling in the jar of Vaseline then set the stick on fire with a Bic lighter.

Before I commit to a new way of starting fires, I must first test it myself.  I don't trust my own eyes when looking at YouTube videos.  Luckily Mary Ann was away today, so I could build my practice campfire in the bathroom with the fan on.  I could also go outside in the snow, but that could attract too much attention in a highly disciplined, rules-driven place like Kitchener, Ontario.  So I grabbed some wood from outside that fell during the ice storm, I'm sure nobody will miss it.  I used a hatchet to cut it into 30 cm lengths, about the same as campground firewood.  Then I brought it inside and used only a knife to split it up into small kindling sticks.  I put it all into an aluminum pan, and stuck one of the sticks in Vaseline then lit it on fire and put it in the middle of the pile. After a while, when I was sure the fire was truly started, I doused it with water and cleaned up the mess.  I also threw the burned sticks out in the snow in the back yard.  See, I'm really careful these days.

http://voices.yahoo.com/building-starting-campfires-16294.html


Picture: How to start a campfire with  Harley.  It's not what I thought (park the bike in a pile of kindling and toss a match in the gas tank) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxffd2wAn9s

Thoughts About Riding Side By Side

I have had at least two people suggest to me that riding side by side on motorcycles is the best way to ride together (as opposed to staggered formation.)

First I will note:

In BC you are prohibited from riding more than two abreast, but two abreast is OK.
http://drivesmartbc.ca/miscellaneous/topic/riding-motorcycles-and-bicycles-side-side
http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/road-safety/motorcycles.htm

Illegal in Alberta
http://transportation.alberta.ca/1335.htm

Illegal in Newfoundland
http://www.servicenl.gov.nl.ca/drivers/DriversandVehicles/driverlicensing/demeritpoints.html

I wonder if three wheelers are officially motorcycles when it comes to riding side by side?  I've never seen two riding abreast.

OK In Australia, but not more than 1.5 m apart, and only in the left lane on a two lane road. (JK, but true also)
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Driver-guide/Sharing-the-road-with-other-road-users/Motorbikes.aspx

OK IN USA except for states beginning with V
http://www.leaguelineup.com/miscinfo.asp?menuid=39&url=wwamo&sid=874327068

PROS (of riding side by side)
- keep together in traffic, without getting separated by four way stops, and traffic lights
- bigger visual impression on other drivers to make them see you
- Faster for either one to hand signal the other (Unless you have radio communication)


CONS
- No escape path on one side for sudden swerving avoidance
- Requires a much greater level of teamwork and training (Which most riders do not have, although they may think they do)
- sometimes illegal

Suggestion:
Without extensive training, do not ride side by side, except I sometimes get pretty close to it for going through traffic lights and four way stops (Assuming this tactic is understood ahead of time), and that the normal staggered position is immediately resumed.  Otherwise, just ride in staggered formation.

As a rule, I don't do any activity where I must depend on perfect teamwork with another person or we both die:

Exceptions noted:
2. If I'm going to die anyway, and said teamwork is my only hope of survival.
3. This activity is insanely fun.
4. I am going to benefit in some major way from this later.

Picture: I'm not really sure if those girls are exactly side by side, but they are violating a lot of other laws.  And anyway, I don't care that much if they are side by side or not.