There Is A Light That Never Goes Out

There's something that's been making me curious lately.  As I'm sure anyone who hasn't been living under a rock has noticed, compact fluorescent bulbs have been getting a lot press time lately.  Regardless of your beliefs on global warming, I'm sure one thing can be agreed on: lower power usage (and therefore, lower power bills) are a good thing.

Wait, did I say everyone could agree on that?  Whoops.  Which gets me to what I'm puzzled by: the "using compact fluorescents is actually going to cause your power bills to increase" crowd.  For those who haven't encountered it, the reasoning goes something like this:

• Incandescent lightbulbs are highly inefficient light sources, using up a significant portion of their power requirements in generating something other than light — namely heat
• Compact fluorescents are more efficient light sources than incandescent bulbs, meaning that less of their energy consumption is wasted generating heat.
• Therefore, by switching to CFLs, your heating bill is going to rise significantly.

Of course, this entire theory misses the point that heaters tend to be far more efficient at generating heat than incandescent bulbs — after all, they aren't wasting energy generating light (unless, of course, your heater is — in which case I'd suggest calling a repairman or the fire department).  Therefore, any heat actually generated by the bulbs would likely be offset by more efficient heat generation methods (that, and the fact that light bulbs normally aren't left on 24 hours a day).

That, of course, doesn't stop it from getting around.  In the past two days I've seen it mentioned both in the letters section of the Gleaner and in comments at Digg.  Granted, neither are paragons of intelligent debate (the Gleaner is seems to be in a race to the bottom with the Bruns, and reading Digg comments makes browsing Slashdot at -1 seem like a seem like a source of rational of discussion in comparison), but it's out there.

Were it not winter, I don't think we'd be hearing this argument; who wants to talk about heat generation when everybody is sweating?

All I Said Was That Piece of Halibut Was Good Enough For Jehovah!

By now, I'm sure that everyone has heard of the Quebec town that recently passed a "code of conduct" for immigrants.  Now, ignoring how silly some of the things are (No stoning women to death?  I'm pretty sure that that's already covered by federal law.), I'm wondering if the townsfolk realise the unintended consequences of some of their "rules".

For example, the majority of the laws are quite blatantly aimed at Muslims.  However, there are some that likely could also apply to the town's current residents.

Take, for example, the ban on face coverings.  Clearly aimed at Muslim women who cover their faces.  However, that's not what the wording of the code of conduct says.  In fact, all the code of conduct says is:

"You may not hide your face as to be able to identify you while you are in public. The only time you may mask or cover your face is during Halloween […]"

Now, Hérouxville isn't listed on Environment Canada's list of weather stations for Quebec City, but Trois-Rivières is.  They also show that, although it has been a mild winter, there have also been days when the temperature has dipped down into the mid minus 30s once the wind chill is factored in.  But remember: it doesn't matter how cold it gets, you're still not allowed to cover your face.  (So unwrap that scarf, buster.)

Then, there's an interesting pair of paragraphs towards the end relating to food.  To me, it's interesting just because of the sheer broadness of the coverage.  To quote:

"They can eat any type of meat, vegetables or fruit. They don't eat just meat or just vegetables they can eat both at the same time and this throughout the whole year."

"If our children eat meat for example, they don't need to know where it came from or who killed it. Our people eat to nourish the body not the soul."

So, let's see, who does that cover?  Well, the "any type of meat" covers Jews, Muslims, certain sects of Buddhists and Hindus, and likely others.  In addition to those, the "this throughout the whole year" covers Catholics.  (Or, at least, it did back when I was still a practising one.  Although the "no meat/poultry on Friday" rule was lifted back in the '60s, Canon law from as recently as a decade ago still frowned upon eating meat/poultry on Ash Wednesday and Fridays during Lent.)

Now, I know that urban Quebec went largely secular during the Quiet Revolution, but I know nothing about the rural areas of the province — and the code of conduct happens to make references to Christian, and more importantly predominantly Catholic celebrations.  Which suggests that, again, residents themselves may be violating their own guidelines.  (And which also ties in to my experience with french-speaking small towns of the Acadian variety, which tended towards predominantly Catholic.)

Finally, in the same section we have a last swipe at meat, stating that "they don’t need to know where it came from or who killed it" — which could be seen as yet another swipe at Jewish immigrants.  But, just to be safe, you probably shouldn't ask if the chicken you're eating is free-range, they don't like that type of talk 'round there.

An Afternoon Conversation With My Brother

(04:04:00 PM) Mr.Pop-N-Fresh: http://wiihaveaproblem.com/show_article.php?id=320
(04:04:45 PM) g026r: Wow, that's something.
(04:04:58 PM) Mr.Pop-N-Fresh: ...yup...
(04:05:56 PM) g026r: Wait, what's your room-mate's name again?
(04:06:11 PM) Mr.Pop-N-Fresh: the roommate who has a wii? steve
(04:06:21 PM) g026r: That your laptop?
(04:06:26 PM) Mr.Pop-N-Fresh: yup
(04:06:31 PM) g026r: Wow.

In Which I Wax Political For A Moment

We received a political handbill in our mailbox from the Conservative Party of Canada the other day.  Sorry, let me correct myself: we received a handbill from "Canada's New Government" the other day, and that's what I want to address:

The election was on January 23rd, 2006.  It is now February 1st, 2007.  It has been over a year.  You are no longer the new boss.  You are officially just the current boss.  If a store was sold and it still had "Under New Management" in the window a year later it would look pretty silly, wouldn't it?  Cut it out.

On the other hand, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.  If someone were to ask me, all differences in ideologies aside, the one thing I disliked most about the current government, I'd have to say that this could be seen as another example of the item that is at the top: an over-emphasis on image, focusing largely on what the previous government did/didn't do as opposed to what they themselves are doing.

Their latest ads can be seen as an example of this: nothing in them about what they've done, just references to Dion and the Liberal party in general.

As far as I can see, there's no reason for me to trust their new-found concern for the environment, because I can't see it as little else than a realisation that "green" is "in", and that they need to at look like they're doing something even if they aren't.  (Seriously: John Baird as Environment Minister?)