Two new media appearances to report, both are by Ryan Bromsgrove, the UAAA VP-Internal.
First, on Friday, he appeared on CJSR campus radio on the first fifteen minutes show Q Transmissions to discuss the vandalism that happened to the UAAA large banner.
Ryan Bromsgrove on Q Transmissions
Second, in the Gateway today he wrote a reply to the last letter (that called me a hypocrite):
A few people have criticized Claudette Roy’s performance last night so far.
But here’s the thing I’m starting to wonder about: Claudette didn’t take any real swings at Linda Duncan. She didn’t take too many as she stuck to her policy mainly, but she did try to frame the debate as between the Liberals and Conservatives. She also aligned herself and the Liberal party as a centrist party (which it is), and I think she was hoping to appeal to fiscal conservatives in the audience.
So I’m thinking there’s a different strategy going on here in the Liberal camp.
Continue reading
In the past provincial election I intensely covered the Edmonton-Strathcona and Riverview (provincial) ridings all-candidates forums at the University of Alberta. For this election, the boundaries of Strathcona are a bit different (larger) and include a diverse liberal, New Democrat and Conservative support base (often leading to vote splitting in the past).
So who’s running. From left to right on the stage (not the spectrum) we have (the letter at the end is how I’ll refer to them when I get to the question-by-question breakdown):
I’d just like to point out that before I got in I wasn’t allowed my popcorn or pop, a dissapointment.
The format was opening statements (1 min each), then prepared questions (1 min response and 30 s rebuttals), then audience questions (30 s responses), then closing remarks (1 min each). Also, as you can see in the top corner, I’ve already endorsed Linda Duncan officially, but I did go for quotes for all and to see how they all stand on their own merits. In the Riverview forum last election, the Wildrose Alliance candidate appreciated my fairness / objectivity, despite us having almost polar opposite economic views.
Here we go:
On the way home from door-knocking today, I stopped by the Scientologist booth on Whyte Avenue.
I got the free “Stress Test” with a real e meter (pictured left).
And to the surprise of the kind older gentleman asking the questions to me, I passed (note it does say “Fail” on it).
Continue reading
Typically the phrases evangelical voting and election refer to our Southern neighbours, but apparently they’re working equally hard to win this election.
It’s worth noting that they aren’t explicitly partisan here:
Continue reading
Sorry for the haitus last week, a cold and a shitstorm of activity kept me from posting. This week I want to focus on a photonic technology: namely, laser cutting.
Industrial laser cutters are typically made from CO2 or solid state Nd:YAG lasers, which are among the highest (continuous) output power lasers that are commercially available. Laser output powers are routinely up to 2 kW continuous. By focusing the laser onto the material meant to be cut. The intense electric field essentially turns solid material to plasma – or ionized gases. This means that lasers can cut materials that are traditionally extremely difficult to cut. The laser is typically controlled by a computer so the precision of laser cutting is typically higher than traditional means. And finally, since light does the cutting, there is no blade to be replaced.
In recent years the ability has been developed to employ laser cutters for very fine projects. Laser micromachining refers to the process of using lasers to etch devices on the micron scale. This opens the field for mass production of microfluidics (pictured), ink jet printer components, x-ray apertures, ruby-based orifices, and leak testing components.
Laser cutting is still a rather expensive technology, but don’t be surprised if in a decade or so your children’s high school shop class has a laser in it.
Good question. Its one that I heard a lot at my civil job this and last summer too. My answers usually are some variety of “really cool, really small stuff” or “waaaay high tech” (decidedly not ‘stain resistant pants’ or ‘leeettle tiny robots’, more on that later), naturally, that didn’t really serve to clarify anything. Continue reading
Today’s Gateway features another in the continuing letter arguments over my now 9 day old op-ed. Hopefully every piece I write can stir this much discussion.
This piece comes from Sheila Kwasek:
I suppose there is really no nice way to say this, so I’ll just come out and say it: Ian Bushfield, in his article (re: “There’s no ‘God’ in Graduation,” 16 September), is being hypocritical.
I can understand that removal of the reference to God may be needed, since it’s true that many people don’t believe in God, and their beliefs should be respected as much as anyone else’s. Yet, while saying that keeping the reference to God is discriminatory, he freely bandies about such notions as religious people living “in fear” of a God, and referring to the religious aspects of the university’s history as its “dark-aged roots.” How can one be think [sic] he truly favours tolerance and equality when he can’t even show respect for religious beliefs?
He also shows very little understanding about the workings of Canadian society. Unlike America, we don’t have a “separation of church and state” as such, we have more of a notion that one religion should not be given preference or predominance in a public institution. Secularism is merely the simplest way to make sure no one religion is predominant in the public sphere.
Though this isn’t always the case in practice, as forcing secular ideals on everyone is surely no better than forcing religious ideals. Yet – as Bushfield’s outspoken disdain for religion shows – the beliefs and values of religious people are rarely given as much consideration as secular values.
Perhaps if Bushfield is concerned about equality, he should start with himself. He probably wouldn’t like the Bible reference, but I think Jesus’ advice stands in this case – “you need to take the plank out of your own eye before you can get the speck out of someone else’s.”
Sheila Kwasek
Arts II
Now this letter is interesting. Shelia agrees with my argument (somewhat), but likely was pissed at the rhetoric I used (remember, I wrote this for the Gateway, not the New York Times).
She calls me a hypocrite for claiming discrimination while disrespecting religion (note: tolerance and respect are not equivalent).
She claims Canada doesn’t have “separation of church and state” (we technically don’t have it in Canada), which I didn’t technically claim, but then admits that we “have more of a notion that one religion should not be given a preference or predominance in a public institution.” But I’m not sure what she thinks the difference between the two phrasings is.
She then seems to think “secular values” can be imposed upon religious people. And that religious values are given less consideration than secular values. I hope she realizes that secularism is not a religion, and there are in fact many secular religious people.
And as for “he probably wouldn’t like the Bible reference”, in fact, Sheila, there are many Bible references I do enjoy.
So I’m going to rub it in, I have seen Religulous, and if you want to know what I think, check out my review on Edger.