Take That to the Bank!

Source: http://goo.gl/ZGeaV

Canadian banks are making a change in the way they hand out money. As they start this new year Canadian Banks have made it clear that they are going to be giving less handouts to businesses. This move has ensured that the big banks are seeing good earnings in the first quarter of the year. Analysts suggest that this may lead to all banks with the exception of National Bank and BMO to increase their dividends. The real question comes down to the magnitude of the lending shortage. How much money are these banks able to lend to businesses? Is it a significant enough amount of money that it could severely affect the way people will look at starting a business?

This won't affect me personally but it will definitely affect my nationwide community. This affects the businessmen and businesswomen of this very nation. This affects the way that these people will look at starting a business in this country. With a lot less lending we would see a drop in the amount of ambitious business ventures. Starbucks, Google, Pandora, and many more companies took great risks and great loans  to be where they are today. Without these loans we might not be able to see the rise of 'The Next Big Canadian Thing'. Though the banks aren't doing this without reason. They need to do this to help the country get out of a recession. Hopefully this can be a big enough push that Canada needs to get back on the track of economic recovery.

A Real Non-Sequester

Source: http://goo.gl/3e5OS

A year and a half ago Congress passed and The President signed The Sequester. A motion that would allow for 1.2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years (8.5 billion this year) if the US couldn't figure out a sound way to reduce the national deficit. These spending cuts are set to automatically start on March 1st 2013. The spending cuts in question were meant to be unappealing to both Democrats (Medical & Educational cuts) and Republicans (Military cuts) in an effort to push both sides to come up with a unanimous solution before the first of March. They have yet to do such a thing. Specifically the sequester will cut spending on: medical research, education budgets, military readiness, services to victims of domestic abuse, vaccines for children, food safety, queues at border crossings, airline travel and aviation security. While this may not be the end of the world, it could really devastate the living conditions in the US.

I feel that these spending cuts are going to greatly affect the way Americans are going to view their daily lives. Many optimists might say that they still have a  few days to come up with a solution and that in those few days this crisis will be averted. However that is simply wishful thinking. Very wishful thinking. If the two sides couldn't come up with a solution in a few years they probably wont come up with one in a few days. So these cuts are almost definitely going to be in place this Friday. While these cuts might help the deficit it really isn't worth the price of leaving kids vulnerable to viruses and leaving many without the means for a proper education. In addition the US spends so much that even after the cuts the deficit will still be increasing, it'll just be at a slower rate than before. With all this considered its not that hard to see why I'm not in favour of the Sequester.

Space Erase

Source:http://goo.gl/t94q8

Two things are common knowledge today: 
1. NASA's funding is a lot lower since the time of the 'Space Race', and therefore launching rockets is incredibly difficult.
2. Space rocks hitting Earth can cause great disaster
With these two facts in our knowledge we can draw some problems and solutions. The problem is that we see meteors hitting earth and causing severe damage to not only buildings and property, but also people. We've all heard of the recent occurrence in Russia, though TheEconomist highlights an incident in 1908 where a meteor hit London and more than 1000 people were injured. There is a serious threat coming from space, not by aliens but rather a callous universe. Now that we see the problem the solution might include a smaller scale NASA. We can see that this is a perfect time for NASA to intervene and build a system that can detect space rocks with sufficient warning and either blast them or push them away. With this idea we can solve the problem of space meteors but we can also have a better and more useful space system. 

While I feel that solving this problem is very important and while this solution makes sense and most likely will work, I feel that TheEconomist is ignoring a few indirect consequences that might happen. While technology like this can be used for good as TheEconomist suggests, there is also the possibility that it can be used for bad. How are we to be sure that America wont  let meteors that are heading for their enemy countries just fall therefore killing thousands of people? What happens when the systems has a fault and accidentally puts people in risk? Would there not be large lawsuits? While I would like to see a plan such as the one TheEconomist has given come to fruition  I really believe that the questions I posed (and more) should be considered before.

China's Cyberwarfare

Source: http://goo.gl/o820J

China denies the claims by Mandiant (US security company) that their military unit in Shanghai had any involvement in the recent hacking that faced many US companies. The spokesman for the military of national defense in China said, "Chinese military forces have never supported any hacking activities. The claim by the Mandiant company that the Chinese military engages in Internet espionage has no foundation in fact." They also stated that due to the anonymity and international nature that is inherent to these attacks it is hard to track these attacks. Though the Mandiant responded by releasing a long report that contained their evidence that these hacks were affiliated with the Military and that included Internet protocol addresses and even the identities of several Chinese individuals it thinks were behind some of the attacks.  In addition Mandiant said that they monitored hackers through social networks and e-mails. In the end the issue and its details are still very cloudy and there is no confirmed answer on where these hacks originated from.

I feel that in the rise of news in part few years about the internet giving rise to hack-tivism as a new way to protest, people have seen to forgotten the scary threat that hacking can bring, and this news is a real wake up call for the general public. The real threat that I see is the fact that if they are smart enough, hackers can essentially be criminals that can get off without any repercussions. However that is not the main point of this article I wish to highlight. The crux of this article is really the fact that both of these two governments are hiding their information leaving not only the public clueless as far as threats that directly affect them, but the governments themselves. The fact is that this incidents shows that there are times when we can't be sure on who to trust, and when the consequences are even higher than they are here we could essentially be free of any safety. And if that fact doesn't scare you, there is something really wrong.

The De-Evolution of School Systems

Source: http://goo.gl/Y8LKT

So we've seen our education system take turns and twists in our times. We've seen it struggle through some moments, but none of those moments never really lasted that long. Except for one. This one's been going on since the beginning of Life on Earth. The issue of creationism in schools. Seeing as it was Charles Darwin's Birthday a few days ago The Huffington Post decided to write a small blurb warning citizens that there are still laws out there trying to push "intelligent design" (creationism with a mask) in place of Darwin's working theory of evolution. The creationists that take part in this propose the motion as "religious freedom" when in reality it's the exact opposite. With the rise of many "Creation Museums" and the amount of creationists trying to sneak their personal beliefs in the public school system, its easy to see why many are concerned with the future of our science departments.

Before I go on to my opinion I really wish to emphasize the fact that I do not abhor people that are religious or even creationists, I simply believe that my tax dollars should not be paying to allow your faith to be taught as scientific fact to children. If you want to teach those ideas in a school, by all means fund your own school for those ideas to be the curriculum, but don't force me to pay for it. I believe that the theory that we have seen being proven true time and again using the scientific method should be taught in public schools (payed for by taxpayers) rather than the belief that is only proven true by faith. The people who propagate this movement under the guise of "religious freedom" need to understand what religious freedom really is. Many of these creationists wish to put the creation story of the Judeo-Christian in our schools, and therefore forcing the government to play favourites as far as religions. These creationists ironically call silencing religions other than their own as "religious freedom". With this movement showing no sign of stopping I myself am one of those who are concerned with the future of our science departments.

A Law Worth Enforcing

Source: http://goo.gl/JBSOa

Law students are some of the brightest minds out there. So why are they facing trouble when trying to find a job after post-grad school? Well these students are however smart enough to realize that there's something wrong about this system. They see the fact that Law Schools tend to cost around $100,000 which is simply too much to ask a student to pay without any Governmental or NGO support. Students feel as though they are stuck and there's too hefty an investment to simply back out. The system needs a reform, and that's exactly what is being considered. What is specifically being considered is removing the third year required to graduate from Law School and become a practicing lawyer. This will essentially remove a large part of the cost that students face as well as streamlining the whole process. In addition to this many current lawyers are now criticizing the third year as being, "useless" and that they, "could have been lawyers after the 2nd year". All this coming together is looking like we'll be seeing a lot more lawyers a lot sooner.

Add caption

While this news won't affect me that greatly from an educational standpoint as law isn't one of my future endeavors, it will definitely affect my friends that are considering going into law. This will almost definitely sway them into choosing law as their major. The reduced amount of time spent in law school will increase the amount of time they spend earning money, therefore dropping the opportunity cost of taking law as a career path. With the passing of this motion we can predict that there will also be an influx of lawyers in the coming years. This can mean some good and bad things. For one, the large amount of lawyers might make a good lawyer more affordable to hire. But on the other hand this creates more competition to become a lawyer and a decreased chance for my friends to get into law school, and if they did they might get less money if the movement didn't imply an influx of lawyers. With all these pros and cons this story will be an interesting one to follow and see develop.

Sorry, Democrats. You are The Weakest Link.

Source: http://goo.gl/dFNOa

This article posted on the ever-so-esteemed New York Times is more of an opinion piece that criticizes the way Democrats conduct themselves in the United States Senate. It talks about how the Democrats “have a case of the nerves” when it comes to speaking about issues. From not bringing forth points to simply not being cohesive as a party, the Democrats have essentially, on multiple occasions, shot themselves in the foot when trying to pass motions in the senate. The Times exemplify their has evidently been proven true with the response to the recent tragedy that took place at Sandy Hook.

Is this a "strong" senator?

This news affects me more personally as an individual rather than it affects my communal surroundings. As I might be called a person who is “Left wing” (Though I prefer not being labeled simply after the side I lean the most on) this affects what people may inadvertently think of me, my political beliefs, and how I might present them. This will lead people to assume that all Democrats are too weak to stand up for their own opinions, that they’re incompetent of working together, that they, after all evidence points in their favour, will not take the opportunity to impose motions that I myself would agree with. Now, some might say that the people propagating such ideas are committing the “Guilt by Association Fallacy” and while that may be true, it is a Guilt by Association that will inevitably occur once the information is gotten a hold of. If I (or my american counterparts) can't trust the party I support to be assertive enough to ensure that my political ideas are given a chance to spar in the intellectual battlefield, then who am I left to trust?