Special Ballot Application Update 4

Well, after a little delay I was finally able to get my special ballot in the mail today. If all goes well my complete ballot should arrive in St. John's on Monday or Tuesday (and this is with the next day delivery option).

While it is a bummer that I had to spend $10 to send my ballot I am glad that it will arrive in time to be counted. There is nothing more frustrating than to have a special ballot that you know won't be counted.

One thing that I didn't mention about the Newfoundland special ballot process is that the ballot comes with a return postage paid envelope. This is something that I think should be included with federal special ballots. Though as far as I can tell this is the one aspect of the Newfoundland special ballot process that is better than the federal process. Sadly neither agency provides the voter with a list of approved candidates or voting options. Apparently you are just supposed to know who is running in your district.

Hopefully this will be the last of my special ballot updates.

Special Ballot Application Update 3

I had hoped to have my special ballot in the mail by this morning. Unfortunately, I failed to give it to Jeannette to drop off at the post office. Because it is due on Wednesday and I don't trust Canada Post to be the least bit prompt with regular mail I will probably have to send my ballot by Xpresspost tomorrow. Bummer.

The upside of all of this is that I should have a ballot that will actually be counted. I am sure that some of my past absentee ballots have not been so fortunate.

Don't I feel classy and important

Just a few minutes ago Jeannette checked the mail and found that the only piece of mail today was a flier from Bloomberg Businessweek advertising a special introductory offer. If I take this offer I will get 26 issues of the magazine for only $20 (I am not as tempted by this deal as I am by The Economist deal that would see me get 12 issues for $15 if it is a better per issue rate).

What I found particularly interesting about this ad were a few of the passages that were supposed to convince me to accept their offer.

The first such passage I particularly liked as it makes it sound as though I am a global business leader. And isn't that something that we all want to be?

In an effort to attract our key demographic audience of senior executives and global business leaders, we're pleased to offer you a special discounted rate on the weekly relaunched Bloomberg Businessweek.

As as much as I would like the following passage to apply to me, I think it is very unlikely that as a TA I will be able to take advantage of this recommendation.

The cost of your Bloomberg Businessweek subscription may qualify for reimbursement from your company. Consult with your business manager and keep top portion for your expense records.

Seeing as I am not actually a "global business leader" or "senior executive" with an expense account that could be used to pay for this subscription I may have to give this promotion a pass. Maybe what I find more surprising is how I ended up on such a highbrow mailing list? I wonder if as I decline these offers I will gradually slide down the prestige scale until they hit me with an offer that is so cheap I can't refuse?

Special Ballot Application Update 2

Well, when I went out to check my mail this evening I found that my special ballot had arrived. This is actually a fair bit earlier than I expected it to arrive. It seems that the factor that I wasn't accounting for was that Elections Newfoundland and Labrador sent my ballot via Xpresspost - something that I may have to do to return it before the deadline.

Of course, my special ballot did not come with a list of candidates or parties that have candidates and as the Elections Newfoundland and Labrador website doesn't provide such information I guess I will have to rely on the party websites to know who are the candidates in my district.

Anyway, I am just glad to have the ballot with enough time to submit it before the October 5 deadline.

Special Ballot Application Update 1

I still don't have my special ballot.

Things are getting tight if I hope to be able to return my ballot to Elections Newfoundland and Labrador by October 5.

I wonder if I will end up having to use an Xpresspost like service to return my ballot?

More details required

A story that I just read on CBC's website really left me wanting more details and a little clarification and again reminded me that much media content should be consumed with a critical eye.

First of all, while the story is primarily dealing with the appearance of caffeine in non-cola carbonated beverages it does not mention the precise dates on which changes were made to allow caffeine in non-cola beverages (according to Health Canada it was March 2010), nor does it even address all relevant changes to policies relating to caffeine in non-cola beverages. All that the article mentioned is that "Health Canada extended the use of caffeine to non-cola soft drinks last year." Part of the problem I have with this lack of information is that this date doesn't jive with my memory of their availability. In particular, they make reference to IRN-BRU being unavailable until this change, though I am sure that I purchased I purchased IRN-BRU in Canada before March 2010. If I had to guess I would have said that my impression was that it has been regularly available in specialty food shops/sections for the past five or six years.

Additionally, in their discussion of this change they completely neglected to mention the regulatory changes a few years ago that allowed for the sale of energy drinks, a type of product that for some time had been unavailable in Canada even while they were widely available in Europe and the US. When did this change happen and isn't it relevant in a discussion of the increased availability of caffeinated carbonated beverages? Why would they later mention the sale of energy drinks and their availability to children if the changes are unrelated to those relating to the sale of non-cola carbonated beverages?

The CBC story also does not mention the fact that while caffeine may not be added to non-cola soft drinks these drinks have a lower maximum level of caffeine.

It should also be noted that even though the CBC story suggests that only colas could have caffeine before this change I am pretty sure that the rule was a little less precise (at times Health Canada uses the term 'cola-type' while in other instances they use the term 'cola'). My understanding of the rule was that it had to do with the brownness of the beverage, which is why your Dr. Pepper's and Barq's of the world were allowed to be sold as caffeinated beverages in Canada before this rule change. The more I think about it, this confusion is likely due to the unclear terminology used by Health Canada in their discussion of caffeinated carbonated beverages.

Maybe what surprised me the most about this story was that the general angle that they took was to confront the potential negative health impacts increased availability of caffeinated carbonated beverages might have on children. What these impacts might be weren't discussed. And of course figures suggesting increases in caffeine consumption among children as a result of the rule change were not provided, nor was the discussion separated from the energy drink issue, which actually seems to be the core of the issue.

I also thought that it was funny that non-cola beverages were being presented as some now kind of non-caffeinated safe haven, now long gone, for parents who don't want their kids to over-consume caffeine. I couldn't help but wondering if a relatively easy way to avoid accidentally providing a kid with a caffeinated beverage would be to either provide a non-pop drink or read the ingredients.

Oh, and maybe the most egregious aspect of the whole story was that it was suggested that the regulatory change came about "because it was good for trade." Of course no evidence other than the fact that some foreign soft-drink manufacturers wanted such a change was provided to support this claim. How this position made its way from the international trade types to the Food and Drug Regulations people is not explained. More importantly, they even note that the official Health Canada position is that "Health Canada's decision to permit the addition of caffeine to non-cola soft drinks was based solely on health and safety considerations."

While it is possible that the change occurred for the reasons they suggested, a little more evidence should have been provided for the story to have real credibility. As the story currently stands it is nothing more than an incoherent mish-mash of decontextualized comments about caffeine in beverages in Canada.

A Few Quick Notes 550

-After a few days of cooler temperatures we seem to have headed back into the mid-twenties. Though it has occasionally been a bit muggy recently, I think that on the whole this weather is fine for this time of year.

-Yesterday some friends from Halifax came out to visit. After doing some apple u-picking we had lunch and then all played some pick-up Ultimate. All in all I think we all had a very enjoyable afternoon.

-Maybe a week ago my father brought to my attention a telephone and internet deal. Almost immediately I signed up for the deal as it will mean a 50% reduction in our telecommunications costs, at least that is what I am hoping will be the case. The aspect of the new arrangement that I am a little worried about is that for maybe two days we may have overlapping service. Anyway, if we don't have a fully functioning phone or internet connection for a few days starting tomorrow afternoon don't be surprised (and I am sure that many of you might be saddened by the prospect of not getting more of these updates for a few days).

Anyway, I just hope the transition is smoother than I am fearing it will be.

-Earlier today I finished reading my first ebook (I read it on an iPad). Much to my surprise, the experience was much more pleasant than I might have expected. Of course, the book didn't have illustrations screw with formatting and as I was reading the book recreationally the fact that it didn't have page numbers wasn't problematic. I can definitely see myself reading ebooks in the future, particularly as public libraries provide larger and larger ebook collections.

Do they even care about informed choices?

For a few weeks I have been quite bothered by the realities of voting by special ballot in the upcoming Newfoundland elections. Some of the issues that I have mentioned in the past relate to the fact that people are allowed to vote before candidates have even been nominated. Now that I have had a chance to look at the Elections Newfoundland and Labrador website more closely it is clear that two additional issues should be addressed.

One of the first things that I noticed today while looking at the Elections Newfoundland and Labrador Information for Electors pamphlet is that all special ballots must be received by October 5, 2011, or almost a week before the election day. If one factors in the incredibly slow Canada Post service that that many people will use it becomes apparent that those voting by special ballot will hardly even be able to observe the formal campaign period before they need to return their ballot. So just because you won't be around for election day you have the good fortune to not be able to use the second half of the campaign to inform your vote choice.

This is clearly unacceptable. Minimally the proces should be changed so that all votes post marked no later than election day are accepted.

A second issue that I was reminded of by visiting the Elections Newfoundland and Labrador website is that the website does not, at least anywhere obvious, contain a list of approved candidates. My recollection is that a similar problem existed during the past two elections as well.

Is it really that hard to provide this information once it becomes available? Not only are a number of media sources able to provide such information, but Elections Canada provides this information.

These issues (and there are probably others that I am not thinking about) when viewed together don't paint a particularly good picture of the electoral system in Newfoundland. I suspect that if we heard about similar practices in other countries we would feel that their electoral systems were less than adequate. Maybe what is most frustrating about these changes is that they don't really need to exist. Fixing most of these problems would likely be relatively inexpensive and straightforward.

Time to submit my special ballot application

As some of you may know, I am not particularly satisfied with the way the provincial electoral system is currently being run in Newfoundland. I find it particularly problematic that individuals are able to vote before candidates have formally been nominated.

Anyway, as a way of expressing dissatisfaction with this system I decided to not submit my special ballot application until after the election had official started. I just hope that this application now has enough time to work its way through the system.

Isn't this the kind of thing an author should know?

I just started re-reading an article and was somewhat taken aback by the first and second sentences.

This paper critically examines the literature on the nature of the capitalist state. It mainly, if not exclusively, deals with Marxist approaches to the state.

I really would have thought that this was the type of issue on which the author could have made a much more conclusive statement.

Reporters on Twitter

Maybe even before I had a Twitter account I was aware of the fact that quite a number of reporters and media types were making use the aforementioned service. As I have spent time on Twitter I have seen that reporters frequently use the service to do such this as promote stories, cover events live, or seek information from fellow users. All of these uses, and more that I can't think of, seem like pretty reasonable uses of Twitter by members of the media. Actually, that there are so many reporters doing things like this on Twitter is one of the reasons that I am so fond of the service. Particularly during election campaigns I have found this entertaining as one might have the ability to simultaneously hear about the daily campaign events of the competing parties as they make their way through the campaign.

But it seems that one major consequence of the fact that Twitter makes the provision of content so easy is that editors are no longer involved in filtering the content of these reporters. Content is going directly from the reporter to the consumer (often times this information seems to be accompanied by more editorializing than one might find in the accounts that are eventually published).

Consequently, many reporters in their Twitter profiles suggest that their tweets don't represent the views of their employer, or something to that effect. They, to at least some extent, are trying to separate their Twitter content from the content provided by their employer.

Of course this separation seems to be only partial at best, and sometimes veering towards misleading. Not only is the connection between the media organization and the reporter made apparent by such disclaimers, but in many cases it is the connection that brings their account it's sense of legitimacy. Furthermore, the reporter has access to the content they are tweeting about only because they are reporters working for their employer. And it should also be noted that they are typically covering stories on Twitter that they have been assigned to cover by their employer.

I think that it is also worth pointing out that these reporters are tweeting about these stories on work time, and probably with work phones. Given that these actions are accessible to the public it seems reasonable to assume that the reporters who are engaging in this behaviour are doing so with the support (and possibly encouragement) of their employers.

Another practice that seems common, particularly among CBC reporters, is to include some form of the network name in their Twitter handle. This further blurs the boundary between the individual's private persona and their media persona and arguably undermines the believability of the profile disclaimers claiming that they don't speak as a representative of their employer.

I guess I generally feel that if you don't want your comments to be attributed to you as the employee of a particular enterprise don't make a point of highlighting your relationship to that enterprise and don't use an supposedly private Twitter to report and comment on things that you are simultaneously being paid to report and comment on.

As things stand now, I think it is hard not to see many reporter's tweets as extensions of the media services for which they work. If reporters or media agencies aren't keen on this public perception they will need to work harder to find ways to clearly differentiate the private and sanctioned web 2.0 content of their employees.

This doesn't look good

Wow, the latest version of the storm Maria projection from the Canadian Hurricane Centre really doesn't look good for Newfoundland, particularly the Avalon peninsula.

Similarly, the satellite imagery of this storm system makes things look rather scary.

To my untrained eye the satellite imagery makes it look as though Nova Scotia will be getting more of this than the Canadian Hurricane Centre suggests (and Newfoundland less). Of course, I am not sure how much one should depend on my assessment of the situation.

Whatever happens I suspect that parts of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia will at least experience heavy rains and winds. Yum.

Where's the CanCon?

I recently noticed that a CBC story about the impending arrival of Tropical Storm Maria in Atlantic Canada was supported with two different graphics from the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, even though they talked to someone from the Canadian Hurricane Center about the storm for the story. And I should make it clear that it is not the case that the Canadian Hurricane Center doesn't have visualizations of the storm projections. They do and they are available to the public through their website.

At first I couldn't quite figure out why the American images were used. And while I still don't have a conclusive answer I wonder if it may have something to do with copyright and that the images produced by the US government are easier to use than those produced by the Canadian government?

This seems like a plausible justification for the occurrence as materials produced by the US government are not copyrighted in the traditional sense. They can be, and frequently are, reproduced by others at no charge and without the need to clear such reproductions. Canadian government content, on the other hand, is not so easily reproducible. The Canadian government retains copyright and more actively controls the reproduction of the content that it produces.

So might this more restrictive approach to government information have lead to the CBC, a public entity funded by the same government that funds the Canadian Hurricane Center, to favour foreign content over domestic content?

How ironic that this might be the case in a country such as Canada that places such emphasis on the creation of domestic media content.

How do we deal with lying?

One final topic for tonight.


Something I have been wondering about recently, particularly since the recent Canadian federal election, is the best with lying by public officials in media coverage.

It seems that currently many news agencies just allow the lie to stand. Even if everyone present knows that the statement is a lie it is reported on as though it could be true.

"Earlier today so and so said X."

Occasionally, and only occasionally, someone might be found to provide a contrasting view. Of course as this person would typically come from an opposing camp consumers might be inclined to take the rebuttal with a grain of salt.

Of course what doesn't happen is that the statements are not labelled as lies or untruths by the news agency. Those not as familiar with the situation or those who are a little more gullible might not know that the information being transmitted is not to be taken seriously.

Members of the media seem so scared of being biased that they fail to perform the important task of separating fact from fiction. Of course, by failing to perform this task on a regular basis they make themselves much less valuable than they might be. In some fields of reporting I am almost convinced that the public is worse of with them as their primary purpose seems to be to give life to lies that would likely otherwise die a quick death.

Another problem with the current electoral system in Newfoundland

A few posts ago I mentioned the seemingly absurd situation in Newfoundland that allows people to vote weeks before the election has even officially been called or candidates are recognized as candidates

A recent news story about one candidate breaking fundraising rules has brought another aspect of this situation to my attention. For over a month voters are voting but candidates are not allowed to raised funds and engage in a full-fledged campaign. This seems a little less than ideal.

Though it is unlikely, one could theoretically lose the election before they are even nominated or allowed to raise a dollar.

This sounds like a great system. It's like buying a lottery ticket after the numbers have been drawn.

This voting before candidates are nominated or officially fully functioning candidates thing has to stop. It just isn't reasonable to allow this type of situation to exist. Not only does it give a huge advantage to the incumbent (particularly if they are a minister), but it creates a situation where there is a huge incentive to break the rules and begin campaigning early.

A Few Quick Notes 549

-While it is currently quite beautiful in Wolfville there is some chance that things will take a turn for the worse in the not too distant future.

Amazingly, even though there is a pretty big weather system just off the coast of Nova Scotia Environment Canada is only going so far as to say that there is a "30 percent chance of showers late this afternoon with risk of thundershowers." I guess I will have to wait and see if there really was only a 30% chance of showers. [It turns out we managed to avoid showers and just get a pretty beautiful day.]

-I took advantage of a local butter sale today and purchased five pounds of butter. Hopefully this will do me for a few months.

-A tee-shirt clad Danny Williams seems to have caused something of a stink in Newfoundland by suggesting that his former director of communications was the most competent women he'd ever met in politics. The pretty obvious implication is that the current premier is less competent than his former director of communications.

It's nice to see that they're keeping everything classy in Newfoundland politics for once.

-I made a quick loaf of bread today.