The PYREX and "pyrex" scandal

I'm just burning mad right now.

I own and use several items of PYREX brand cookware, from casserole dishes to measuring cups. I like using it. By extension, I've always respected its manufacturer, Corning Glass. I think it's good to be doing one thing and doing it really well.

What I've just discovered is that Corning switched from making cookware out of its original formulation of glass back in 1998. The original was borosilicate glass, the same type as is used in laboratory equipment. These days, it is tempered soda-lime glass. The tempering process makes this cheaper type of glass stronger, but puts extra stress on the interior. That means that, when the glass is about to break, it breaks more violently.

Corning denies that there's any danger in the new formulation, but there are lawsuits. It also says that some of its PYREX kitchenware was made from the soda-lime glass even before 1998. However, I won't buy any of the newer formulation.

Here's how you tell: prior to 1998, American-made kitchenware had PYREX (R) printed in all-capital letters; after 1998, it used lower-case. Like this:



See the difference in the trademarks?

Also, the rights to use the PYREX trademark in Europe went to the French company, Arc. It continues to make its products from borosilicate glass, and it continues to use capital letters for the PYREX  name. You can find its products here: https://icedteapitcher.myshopify.com/.

More about the switch in PYREX glass formulas:

http://nowiknow.com/the-war-against-pyrex/
https://gizmodo.com/the-pyrex-glass-controversy-that-just-wont-die-1833040962?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral

Comparative Corruption in the United States and Canada

On Quora, recently, I rejected someone's idea that Canada and the United States should merge. One reason I offered is that it would leave Canada subordinate to the more corrupt of the two nations. I was challenged to substantiate my comment, but the person I was corresponding with rejected the standard measures of national corruption. Here is a lightly-edited version of my defence:
--------

Let us look at the political system in the United States for signs of corruption. The first problem it faces in being fair and free is interference elections by partisan gerrymandering.

The US ends up with electoral districts like this one:

Canada has electoral districts determined by non-partisan committees based on electoral data, natural boundaries, existing communities, and compact borders. They look like these:

In a province with fewer geographical features, they look like this:

The corrupt redistricting in the US has huge effects on the results of elections. For example, “The Brennan Center for Justice estimates extreme partisan bias gave Republicans at least 16 to 17 more seats in the 2016 election, and possibly as many as 29, according to one analysis. Democrats were 24 seats short of controlling the House of Representatives.” (Here's how gerrymandering games U.S. elections — and why this Pennsylvania decision matters | CBC News).

The courts sometimes try to redress the corruption (North Carolina Is Ordered to Redraw Its Congressional Map, Pennsylvania top court redraws voting map in boost to Democrats, A Flurry of Courts Have Ruled on Election Maps. Here’s What They’ve Said). Sometimes, the courts have not (U.S. Supreme Court declines to curb electoral map manipulation). This is a worm eating at the heart of democracy.

See also, Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America's Democracy: David Daley, Brian Sutherland: 0191091084298: Books).

The second problem is ongoing efforts to disenfranchise voters on partisan grounds (New Voting Restrictions in America). These include imposing requirements for specific forms of picture ID and the closing offices in which they can be obtained (e.g. As it turns out ... Bentley's driver's license closures were racial, after all), as well as the closing of polling stations in minority districts (this story is from 2014, New G.O.P. Bid to Limit Voting in Swing States, and this one is from 2016, Opinion | The Voters Abandoned by the Court, and this one is from 2018, Georgia candidates decry plan to close voting sites in mostly black...).

In contrast Elections Canada (the independent federal agency that runs the elections) has a mandate to educate the electorate in order to increase the number of votes.

The third problem is the transparent and overwhelming influence of money on the American government’s composition and decisions. I became aware of that in the lead-up to the “Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act,” also known as the “Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act.” It was an outright gift of an extra twenty-year monopoly to copyright holders or, to put it differently, a brazen theft from the public domain. Prior to that act, there were 10 extensions in 40 years, all timed to prevent the first Mickey Mouse cartoon from falling into the public domain. Now, even with a 70 or 95-year term in place, Congress is looking at extending it again (Congress' Latest Move to Extend Copyright Protection Is Misguided).

This is just one example, of course. Looking at all the data leads to the Princeton study that tested whether the United States was better described as a democracy or an oligarchy. It came down on the side that “oligarchy” was a better description (https://scholar.princeton.edu/si...).

Honestly, though, any research on the influence of the Military-Industrial Complex, pork barrelling (Pork barrel spending on the rise in Congress, watchdog group says), the Koch Brothers or the Big Pharma lobbies would lead one to the same conclusion. The endless electoral process from the primaries up to the election requires endless cash, which comes with substantial strings. In fact, American “elected officials spend 30-70% of their time in office fundraising for the next election. When they’re not fundraising, they have no choice but to make sure the laws they pass keep their major donors happy — or they won’t be able to run in the next election.” (One graph shows how the rich control American politics).

Whether the legislators are corrupt or the judges, I don’t know, but this is not a good sign of a fair and open government: The West Virginia House impeached the entire state Supreme Court.

In contrast, Canada has strict limits on personal contributions to electoral campaigns or parties, and corporations are not allowed to donate at all. Campaigns are also short. And the government provides rebates on some electoral expenses to encourage smaller parties to participate in the election and be heard.

Finally, appointments to Canadian courts, even the highest, are based on qualifications, not politics. (Why Canada's Supreme Court appointments are nothing like America's circus - Macleans.ca; Non-political SCC appointment process a welcome improvement). In most cases, a judge’s politics are not even known.

So, without referring to any of the measures you reject, I argue that the United States has a more corrupt political culture than Canada.

Political Parties and their Funding in Canada

I was discussing politics online with a couple of Americans (John Eremic and Ankur Aggarwal). John mentioned that all elections were choices between two evils and that government was necessarily corrupt. My own point of view of government was more optimistic because I've never been limited to only two choices of party, and the House of Commons has always had at least two other parties weighing in on every matter. The discussion made me wonder what American politics would look like with multiple parties, in the Canadian style.

Both the Democrats and Republicans are “big tent” parties, but no-one seems particularly happy with their tent-mates. The rift between Clinton and Sanders supporters, on one side, was mirrored by the public and bitter rift between Trump supporters and the NeverTrump supporters on the other.

The last federal election in Canada was a very close three-way race until the last week or two. The parties were

1. the Conservative Party, under the leadership of The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, which had a legacy of government, a few well-publicized examples of mismanagement and prevarication, and a few tentative moves to stigmatize Muslims;
2. the New Democratic Party, under Tom Mulcair, was a socialist party that had been in second place in Parliament and tried for a breakthrough into power by moving towards the centre,
3. the Liberal Party under new leader Justin Trudeau was left-leaning centrist. In addition, there was
4. the Bloc Quebecois which campaigns on Canada’s version of State’s Rights, but only for and only in the province of Quebec, and
5. the Green Party, which finally got its first seat in Parliament in the last election.
6. There’s one Independent. There’s usually one or two of these, and I remember one vote in which the fate of the government rested on the vote of an Independent.

Now, if we map this onto the US, the Sanders supporters would split between the NDP, the Liberals, and the Green Party, but be fairly happy with their choice either way. Clinton supporters would go for the Liberals or the Conservatives. NeverTrump Republicans would go for the Conservatives. I think that Trump supporters would probably form a protest party on the right, as has happened more than once (Social Credit, Wild Rose, Reform…).

Anyone not covered might consider one of the other existing parties. The last time I bothered to check there were 22, including two Communist parties that have never elected a Member of Parliament but have contested for seats since the 1920’s. I honour their persistence.

In addition, my correspondent's sense of helplessness to alter a government could well be due to how the political parties are funded. There is no limit to the spending of groups that are not the political parties in favour or against the political parties, and the spending can be by corporations as well as by actual people. It would take many, many individuals to match the potential or actual spending of a Google or the Koch Brothers, so why, he might wonder, should an individual bother?

However, the funding of parties is quite a bit different between the United States and Canada. I believe that the Canadian rules are much fairer, and they may be surprising to an American.

Individuals may contribute funds to a party, but not corporations. The limit is $1500/year. The names of all donors of $200 or more must be released. There are generous tax credits for individuals who donate.

The government partially reimburses parties for electoral spending. How much depends on how much the national vote was attracted or how much of the vote only in the ridings in which they ran candidates. (“2 per cent of the national vote or 5 per cent of the vote in the districts in which they ran candidates receive 50 per cent of the money they spent as a reimbursement.”)

There are also spending limits in force during an election:

“Political parties may spend 73.5 cents for every voter in districts where they are running candidates. For their local campaigns, candidates may spend an amount based on the population of the district in which they are running, typically between $75,000 and $115,000. If the election campaign is longer than 36 days, as was the case in 2015, the limits for both parties and candidates are increased proportionately.

“Groups or individuals other than political parties and candidates may spend no more than $150,000 to try to persuade voters during an election, and no more than $3,000 of that may be spent in any one district. Critically, all of these limits to spending apply only during the election period — between when the writs of election have been issued (when the election is officially called) and election day.”

There is more detail here (Political Party Financing in Canada), but I think those are the highlights.

As for the media, I’ll confine my comments to the leaders’ debates. Participation in them is complicated by the number of parties, the need to have debates in both official languages, and the freedom of leaders to take part or not. In general, parties that had Members of Parliament before the election was called were invited to the debates. Here’s some detail about who came to which: Canadian federal election, 2015 - Wikipedia

I’d say that small parties get better opportunities to win a seat or two in a Westminster-style Parliament. That’s how the Greens got their first MP, by concentrating on the election of their strongest candidate in a sympathetic riding. Once you have seats, you have the ability to ask questions and propose bills in Parliament, although Private Members bills often don’t pass. You also, then, get to speak in leaders’ debates in the next election.

Social Justice

Here's my response to this quotation: "How do you respond to this Walter E. Williams quote, 'But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn.'"

---

You want to start a business. Fine. I offer you a place to start your business. It’s got plumbing and electricity. There’s a security system and a guard on call. If you have any questions about the regulations in this place, we’ve got someone with the answers you can call. This is a great place to get your business off the ground. We really hope you make a success of it.

But, you do know that all that infrastructure comes with costs, right? And the security isn’t free. And someone is paying for the staff to give you the information you need. Even the money you earn has value only because of a system that you didn’t establish, but benefit from. So what share of the money you earn belongs to the people who built and ran the place, guaranteed the security, and set up the systems? It’s got to be more than nothing, right?

Now, the roads, the water, the electricity, the laws, the courts, the government, the schools that train up the kids to make them worthwhile employees for you, the hospitals that patch them up when a work-related accident happens so they can go back to work…what’s your share of that? Because you’re sure not paying the full cost.

And if your business fails, but you don’t starve, not because of the kindness of this neighbour or that one, but because there’s a whole system we’ve collectively voted for and collectively pay for to make sure you and your family don’t starve, should you pay into that while you can? Or is it something you’ll turn up your nose at because the system is, at the moment, keeping someone else from starving?

A lot of what each person earns is owed to this “public thing” that allows us to earn. And the Latin for “public thing” is “res publica.” We often shorten it to “republic.”

Part of Iago's Motivation in Othello was that he was Spanish

Over on the Quora website, in a post by David Melinkoff, I learned something new that changes my interpretation of Iago in Shakespeare's Othello. It's that "Iago" is not an Italian name.

Iago's apparently a common name in the Galician language (a language with many similarities to Portuguese, but which is spoken in Spain). Spaniards are more likely to be called Santiago (St. James), like the old man in Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea. Alternatively, "Diego" and "Tiago" may be corruptions of Santiago. Instead of thinking "Sant Iago," people may have thought "San Tiago."

In contrast, the Italian version of "James" is "Giacomo, Iacopo or Jacopo, Giacobbe, Giacomino, Giaco, Giamo, Mino." Quite different.

The significance of Iago's ethnicity is that Moors and Spaniards have a history. To be specific, the Reconquista is a period of 780 years in which the Christians of Spain gradually "reconquered" the Muslim-ruled areas of the Iberian Peninsula. It concluded in 1492, but the relations between Christian Spain and its non-Christian subjects led to later tensions. In 1492, Moors in Granada had to convert or be expelled. In 1502, Queen Isabella made Catholic faith compulsory in Castille. In 1526, Charles V ordered the same within Aragon. Philip III systematically expelled the descendants of Muslim Moors (Moriscos) between 1609 and 1614 and succeeded in ridding his kingdom of about a quarter million of them.

This relates to Iago's motive for hating Othello, which is a problem and a half to understand. Coleridge called it "motiveless malignity." Others suggest jealousy and envy, but these do not seem to be primary motives.

However, Shakespeare most likely wrote Othello in 1603, when the long-standing antagonism between Catholics and Moors in Spain was still at work. His audience would have been well aware of it, and would not need it explained. Think of the racial slurs that Iago aims at Othello--"an old black ram," "barbary horse," "lascivious Moor." These seem to spring from a culture that is long-experienced at despising darker people. In an American context, they'd be at home in the Deep South, where racial hatred and repression have had a long history. I don't feel they would come to people as readily in a cosmopolitan city such as Renaissance Venice, though it had its own ethnic tensions.

------

Here is the answer I had given on the question "

Would the events of ‘Othello’ still have happened if Othello were a white person with the same personality as the original Othello?" Obviously, I now disagree with my last paragraph, but I still think the rest is correct:

Othello was a Moor to emphasize that he was an outsider. That shows us how extraordinary his success has been, to rise to the top levels of Venetian power; it also shows us how important Desdemona was to him. She is the only one who sat him down and demanded that he tell her about his life and all his suffering. She wanted to know the story behind every scar and cried for how hard his life had been. Her sympathy utterly melted Othello, so that he took the extraordinary risk to his position, and perhaps to his life, of secretly marrying Desdemona. The two of them eventually won her father’s support, but it was a near-run thing.

So, it’s important to the story that Othello be an outsider. He didn’t necessarily have to be a Moor.

I think he also had to be from a Mediterranean culture that operates according to the honour-shame complex (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/anthropolo...). Men can earn honour, in these societies, but women can only lose it. If they do lose it, then only violent punishment of the women can restore the family’s honour. It’s important that Othello feel that he had no alternative but to kill Desdemona, although he still loved her. In the end, he loved his honour more.

So, I think that Othello could have been an Arab or a Turk or a Spaniard or a Greek as easily as he was a Moor. The story wouldn’t have worked as well if he had been, let’s say, a Dane.

What's Canada's Government Like?

Well, now, to answer the question of what Canada's government is like, We should know what "the government of Canada" is, exactly, right? That's a little complicated, but here it is:

Right now, the government of Canada consists of the Liberal Pary caucus, meaning all of the Members of Parliament (M.P.'s) who belong to the Liberal Party. In fact, the Liberal caucus actually holds the impressively formal title of "Her Majesty's Government" because their M.P.'s outnumber those of any other party. 

The leader of the government party is called the Prime Minister, and here's the current one, Justin Trudeau, M.P.

The Prime Minister selects a committee of his fellow caucus members to do the actual running of the government, though. They sit with him in a group called the Cabinet.

However the Cabinet and, indeed, Her Majesty’s Government, are parts of the House of Commons and are answerable to the full House.

Or, perhaps you’re thinking of Parliament itself, of which the House of Commons is only one half. The other half is the Senate.

Now, at its most inclusive, the term “Government of Canada” also includes the Governor-General, who carries out the Queen’s duties in Canada. That person is currently David Johnston.

But the Queen is the head of state

And the judicial branch of government is topped by the Supreme Court of Canada.

That’s a 2016 photo, apparently.

Canada also has a written constitution, in two parts. The Queen proclaimed them the law of the land.

That’s about it. Unless the question is about how well the government of Canada is doing these days. Well, the Opposition parties, unsurprisingly, have criticisms, but there has been a refreshing lack of moral turpitude on the part of the government since the Senate scandals got aired and dealt with, and most parts of the Liberal Party platform seem to be heading towards becoming the law of the land at a deliberate pace (TrudeauMeter).

Does "North America" Exist? Some Say Not.

I find it frustrating at times to interact with people, especially Spanish speakers, who inform me that Canada is an American country. It sounds silly, put like that, but they learn in school that "América is a continent, from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego. The name of the US is United States of America. Canada and all the Iberian American countries are American countries."

They are partially correct. That is the proper terminology to use in Spanish.

In English, North America (a continent) and South America (a continent) make up a unit that is either called “The Americas” or “the New World” or even “the Western Hemisphere,” but never just “America.” 

That's my assertion, which just on the face of it, has neither more nor less weight than the opposite assertion.

We could just argue about that, but I’d rather point you at one of many, many English language sources. We can start with our good friends at Wikipedia (Americas).

In modern English, North and South America are generally considered separate continents, and taken together are called the Americas in the plural, parallel to similar situations such as the Carolinas. When conceived as a unitary continent, the form is generally the continent of America in the singular. However, without a clarifying context, singular America in English commonly refers to the United States of America.

In some countries of the world (including France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Greece, and the countries of Latin America), America is considered a continent encompassing the North America and South America subcontinents, as well as Central America”

So, like I said, it’s a Spanish-language thing to call both North America and South America simply America.

The source also mentions that, in French, “America” includes North America and South America. However, the Canadian government, in its French-language usage, does not do so, but calls them Les Amériques , or “the Americas.” (Le Canada et les Amériques). Another example: L'Amérique du Nord et du Sud - IR (10.7 µm).

The National Geographic Society agrees that they are separate continents (North America: Human Geography):

North America and South America are named after Italian navigator Amerigo Vespucci. Vespucci was the first European to suggest that the Americas were not part of the East Indies, but an entirely separate landmass. The portions of the landmass that widened out north of the Isthmus of Panama became known as North America.

I don’t think you’ll find much support in recent English-language writing to the idea that “America” is a single continent. In fact, I can assure you that, in Canadian high schools (as I suspect, in American ones), the continents of North America and South America are named separately.