This whole Zidane incident at the World Cup 2006 final between France and Italy has raised my eyebrow. Not so much the incident. Yes, Zidane was wrong to do it and he's certainly become the butt of many jokes. One e-mail sent to me recently shows an animated Zidane dealing with problems in various scenarios by head-butting. I've also seen a video that shows how to deal with everyday problems using the head-butting technique. And certainly, it will be difficult for Zidane to live this incident down, for many years to come. It may even become his epitaph. But what of the recipient of the head-butt, the Italian player Materazzi?
Both players were given three game suspensions by FIFA, as well as fines. This doesn't mean anything to Zidane, since he has stated that he is retiring from the game. Zidane did offer to perform three days of community service in FIFA's name instead, which FIFA accepted. Good for them. It shows Zidane is contrite about the incident and wants to make amends. For Materazzi, it means missing the first three games of the next international competition, which includes missing a game against France. Oh irony of ironies! Of course, Italian soccer fans are up in arms about this. They don't agree with the Italian player receiving any kind of punishment, since he is the 'victim.' Not so, I say. Materazzi is the one that provoked Zidane into this action in an obviously thinly veiled attempt at drawing a penalty. Exacerbated by his drama queen writhing on the soccer pitch. Yes, Zidane exhibited unsportsmanlike conduct, but Materazzi is just as guilty of not living up to the ideals of international competition.
Oh sure, they all do it. They all hurl insults at each other to provoke actions like Zidane took. They've probably taken acting classes or practiced in front of mirrors to develop their techniques for showing how much pain they're in, even though the other player didn't touch them, in order to draw a penalty. If FIFA wants to clamp down on these acts, then I say, unless there is blood, both players should get the penalty. That will stop these divers from acting their way to a victory. Diving has even crept into the NHL. I don't remember a lot of diving happening until many Europeans came across the pond to play. Is this a European thing? Are European professional athletes just a bunch of wimps and cry babies that would rather win by having the best players in the penalty box, or should they battle it out in the spirit of good sportsmanship?
To the Italian soccer fans, I say this: Quit your griping. Materazzi got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Be thankful he didn't get a more serious judgment against him.
Wings Over The World
July 22, 2006
July 21, 2006
(Canadian) Exodus
I saw it with my own eyes last night on the news and I can only shake my head in disbelief.
The first boat load of Canadians evacuated from Lebanon landed in Cyprus yesterday. Did we hear relief to be away from the war zone? A thanks to the Canadian government for getting them out? No. All we heard were complaints: no food, no water, cramped quarters, filthy bathrooms, no air conditioning...Wait a minute! No air conditioning?!?!!?! You were just rescued from a war zone and you're complaining that there was no air conditioning?!?!!? Do you think this was a Mediterranean cruise on a five star ship? Next you'll be complaining there wasn't a show on the Lido Deck to entertain you.
Okay. There were problems. The Canadian government hastily put this evacuation together. You were the first boatload to get out. Of course it's not going to run perfectly. Let the government officials know where the deficiencies were so that they can correct it for future boatloads. But don't rant about it. There was one women complaining and when someone, presumably a friend or relative, who mentioned that she should at least thank the Canadian government for getting her out. What did she do? She just walked away. How ungrateful is that? Given a choice, would you rather stay in Beirut until the Canadian government can bring up The Love Boat? Your advising people that are still in Beirut to find other ways to get home? Easy for you to say, you're on a plane heading back to Canada. I'm sure there are thousands still trapped that would have gladly taken your place.
Lets get back to what the first guy said. No food and no water for an eight hour trip that turned into a 16 hour voyage. Okay, there should have been food and water, even if it was an eight hour trip. It was reported that the reason it took 16 hours is that the Israeli Navy stopped the boat twice for at least two hours each time. Although, one person from the second boat said they were eating the same kind of sandwiches for the past two days. Again, a war zone. Be thankful you had anything to eat! I don't think the Canadian government had much time to get Wolfgang Puck to cater the war. Cramped quarters on the first boat? Well, there were 261 evacuees on a boat that normally carries 100. Do the math. Some people are going to have to sleep on the deck. Filthy bathrooms? I think you can blame your fellow refugees for not wiping the sink with their towellette after they were finished, for that one. No air conditioning? Why don't you just give yourself a shake!
Last night, the media reported that an estimated 50,000 Canadian citizens are in Lebanon, with 38,000 registered with the Canadian embassy to be evacuated. The largest group compared to any other nation. People were actually trying to climb the fence to get crammed onto these boats that don't have air conditioning. Meanwhile, the media showed a scene of American Marines coming in with their landing craft onto a Beirut beach and picking up American civilians to take to their ship. Didn't see any Americans complaining about getting into that boat.
At this point, I have to say that Spirit of the West got it wrong. We ARE NOT Far Too Canadian. People readily vilified the Canadian government for their handling of the evacuation. The only bright spot was someone that was interviewed for the CBC newscast actually thanking the Canadian government for getting them out. Yes, I did it. I gave kudos to the CBC.
Since this operation is going to cost a lot of money, then maybe government officials should start taking names and start billing the evacuees. Of course, they would get discounts if there was no food or water, just like on a no frills airline. Simply stated, I would rather it not come out of my pocket, because I'm just disgusted with the ungrateful evacuees that I saw interviewed last night on the news. And it was out there for all the world to see...and judge us by.
Wings Over The World
The first boat load of Canadians evacuated from Lebanon landed in Cyprus yesterday. Did we hear relief to be away from the war zone? A thanks to the Canadian government for getting them out? No. All we heard were complaints: no food, no water, cramped quarters, filthy bathrooms, no air conditioning...Wait a minute! No air conditioning?!?!!?! You were just rescued from a war zone and you're complaining that there was no air conditioning?!?!!? Do you think this was a Mediterranean cruise on a five star ship? Next you'll be complaining there wasn't a show on the Lido Deck to entertain you.
Okay. There were problems. The Canadian government hastily put this evacuation together. You were the first boatload to get out. Of course it's not going to run perfectly. Let the government officials know where the deficiencies were so that they can correct it for future boatloads. But don't rant about it. There was one women complaining and when someone, presumably a friend or relative, who mentioned that she should at least thank the Canadian government for getting her out. What did she do? She just walked away. How ungrateful is that? Given a choice, would you rather stay in Beirut until the Canadian government can bring up The Love Boat? Your advising people that are still in Beirut to find other ways to get home? Easy for you to say, you're on a plane heading back to Canada. I'm sure there are thousands still trapped that would have gladly taken your place.
Lets get back to what the first guy said. No food and no water for an eight hour trip that turned into a 16 hour voyage. Okay, there should have been food and water, even if it was an eight hour trip. It was reported that the reason it took 16 hours is that the Israeli Navy stopped the boat twice for at least two hours each time. Although, one person from the second boat said they were eating the same kind of sandwiches for the past two days. Again, a war zone. Be thankful you had anything to eat! I don't think the Canadian government had much time to get Wolfgang Puck to cater the war. Cramped quarters on the first boat? Well, there were 261 evacuees on a boat that normally carries 100. Do the math. Some people are going to have to sleep on the deck. Filthy bathrooms? I think you can blame your fellow refugees for not wiping the sink with their towellette after they were finished, for that one. No air conditioning? Why don't you just give yourself a shake!
Last night, the media reported that an estimated 50,000 Canadian citizens are in Lebanon, with 38,000 registered with the Canadian embassy to be evacuated. The largest group compared to any other nation. People were actually trying to climb the fence to get crammed onto these boats that don't have air conditioning. Meanwhile, the media showed a scene of American Marines coming in with their landing craft onto a Beirut beach and picking up American civilians to take to their ship. Didn't see any Americans complaining about getting into that boat.
At this point, I have to say that Spirit of the West got it wrong. We ARE NOT Far Too Canadian. People readily vilified the Canadian government for their handling of the evacuation. The only bright spot was someone that was interviewed for the CBC newscast actually thanking the Canadian government for getting them out. Yes, I did it. I gave kudos to the CBC.
Since this operation is going to cost a lot of money, then maybe government officials should start taking names and start billing the evacuees. Of course, they would get discounts if there was no food or water, just like on a no frills airline. Simply stated, I would rather it not come out of my pocket, because I'm just disgusted with the ungrateful evacuees that I saw interviewed last night on the news. And it was out there for all the world to see...and judge us by.
Wings Over The World
July 20, 2006
Dual Citizenship Quagmire?
I can talk about the current conflict in Southern Lebanon/Northern Israel, but what's the point. Hezbollah and the Israeli government obviously haven't been reading my blog. So I want to turn my attention to something else that has cropped up during the conflict.
With the number of foreign nationals in the area trying to leave, seeking their governments' help to do so, I wanted to discuss something my partner brought up last night, dual citizenship.
It has been reported that up to 30,000 people with Canadian citizenship have registered with the Canadian embassy to be evacuated. Apparently, the majority are people that were born in Lebanon, had moved to Canada to escape conflict, then decided to return after they had achieved Canadian citizenship, without renouncing their Lebanese citizenship. The result? Dual citizenship. Some of these people have reportedly returned to Lebanon as many as ten or more years ago. The question is: should the Canadian government take responsibility for evacuating those with dual Canadian/Lebanese citizens, that have established a permanent residence in Lebanon?
The Citizen and Immigration Canada website has outlined the advantages and disadvantages of dual citizenship, so I won't get into that. But the website does bring up an interesting point. As a citizen of another country, you are subject to the other country's laws, even if they are in conflict with Canadian laws, and they may even take precedence over those laws. Case in point is mandatory military service. The website even points out that if a Canadian citizen has dual citizenship and has a permanent residence in Canada, that the other country could potentially come to Canada and collect that person for military service!
Now back to my original question. Obviously, these people in Lebanon with dual citizenship are taking advantage of their Canadian status to leave a war zone. The Canadian government is facing difficulty evacuating these people because of the numbers, in comparison to other countries. Canada also has a problem with respect to equipment availability (i.e. the military capability), but that's for another post. For the lucky few, some are being accepted by other countries on their ships, such as the British, Dutch and Italian ones, sent to the area. So, should the Canadian government (or any other government, for that matter) go through extraordinary measures to evacuate those that have dual citizenship, but have established permanent residency in Lebanon.
I think there can only be one answer to this. A resounding YES. The Canadian government, and indeed any government, that establishes a policy of accepting dual citizenship, also accepts the responsibility to those citizens, with the same responsibility it shows towards Canadians without dual citizenship. The Canadian government must go through extraordinary measures to protect its citizens, especially in the case of evacuating civilians from what is in effect, a war zone, at whatever the cost (which apparently they are doing, and it was mentioned that the cost will be quite high, according to one news report). From the news reports I've seen, I will go one step further and state that Canada should have contingency plans in place to accomplish just such a task. Not only should Canada have plans to evacuate its citizens from war zones, but from disaster areas, such as we saw from the tsunami that flooded Southeast Asia a year and a half ago. If that means having more military ships and aircraft, so be it. Canada has a set policy, they must not abrogate their responsibilities to their citizens. Canada is getting closer to its military capability needs by ordering new military ships and aircraft recently, after years of Liberal neglect under Mr. Chretien, but it will be a couple of years before the new capability will enter the Canadian military inventory.
Canada has a stated policy of allowing dual citizenship. Unless it rescinds that policy, it must protect everyone that has a valid Canadian citizenship, regardless of how many other citizenships they may possess, and wherever they may be living, whether it's temporarily or permanent.
As a side note, I would like to applaud the other countries that have sent ships to evacuate their own citizens, and accepting people from other countries, including Canadians, on their ships because they had the space. This is a case of countries, regardless of differences they may have, working together to protect each other's citizens. The caveat is that evacuees may have forged passports, so embassies need to work together to ensure people with ulterior motives do not use this opportunity to gain an advantage they would not otherwise have. That would include terrorists posing as Canadian citizens, leaving the area to set up shop elsewhere.
Let us hope that the foreign citizens trapped in Lebanon get out soon, safely. And with the help of many countries, that will happen.
Wings Over The World
With the number of foreign nationals in the area trying to leave, seeking their governments' help to do so, I wanted to discuss something my partner brought up last night, dual citizenship.
It has been reported that up to 30,000 people with Canadian citizenship have registered with the Canadian embassy to be evacuated. Apparently, the majority are people that were born in Lebanon, had moved to Canada to escape conflict, then decided to return after they had achieved Canadian citizenship, without renouncing their Lebanese citizenship. The result? Dual citizenship. Some of these people have reportedly returned to Lebanon as many as ten or more years ago. The question is: should the Canadian government take responsibility for evacuating those with dual Canadian/Lebanese citizens, that have established a permanent residence in Lebanon?
The Citizen and Immigration Canada website has outlined the advantages and disadvantages of dual citizenship, so I won't get into that. But the website does bring up an interesting point. As a citizen of another country, you are subject to the other country's laws, even if they are in conflict with Canadian laws, and they may even take precedence over those laws. Case in point is mandatory military service. The website even points out that if a Canadian citizen has dual citizenship and has a permanent residence in Canada, that the other country could potentially come to Canada and collect that person for military service!
Now back to my original question. Obviously, these people in Lebanon with dual citizenship are taking advantage of their Canadian status to leave a war zone. The Canadian government is facing difficulty evacuating these people because of the numbers, in comparison to other countries. Canada also has a problem with respect to equipment availability (i.e. the military capability), but that's for another post. For the lucky few, some are being accepted by other countries on their ships, such as the British, Dutch and Italian ones, sent to the area. So, should the Canadian government (or any other government, for that matter) go through extraordinary measures to evacuate those that have dual citizenship, but have established permanent residency in Lebanon.
I think there can only be one answer to this. A resounding YES. The Canadian government, and indeed any government, that establishes a policy of accepting dual citizenship, also accepts the responsibility to those citizens, with the same responsibility it shows towards Canadians without dual citizenship. The Canadian government must go through extraordinary measures to protect its citizens, especially in the case of evacuating civilians from what is in effect, a war zone, at whatever the cost (which apparently they are doing, and it was mentioned that the cost will be quite high, according to one news report). From the news reports I've seen, I will go one step further and state that Canada should have contingency plans in place to accomplish just such a task. Not only should Canada have plans to evacuate its citizens from war zones, but from disaster areas, such as we saw from the tsunami that flooded Southeast Asia a year and a half ago. If that means having more military ships and aircraft, so be it. Canada has a set policy, they must not abrogate their responsibilities to their citizens. Canada is getting closer to its military capability needs by ordering new military ships and aircraft recently, after years of Liberal neglect under Mr. Chretien, but it will be a couple of years before the new capability will enter the Canadian military inventory.
Canada has a stated policy of allowing dual citizenship. Unless it rescinds that policy, it must protect everyone that has a valid Canadian citizenship, regardless of how many other citizenships they may possess, and wherever they may be living, whether it's temporarily or permanent.
As a side note, I would like to applaud the other countries that have sent ships to evacuate their own citizens, and accepting people from other countries, including Canadians, on their ships because they had the space. This is a case of countries, regardless of differences they may have, working together to protect each other's citizens. The caveat is that evacuees may have forged passports, so embassies need to work together to ensure people with ulterior motives do not use this opportunity to gain an advantage they would not otherwise have. That would include terrorists posing as Canadian citizens, leaving the area to set up shop elsewhere.
Let us hope that the foreign citizens trapped in Lebanon get out soon, safely. And with the help of many countries, that will happen.
Wings Over The World
July 18, 2006
Ista or Ati. Which One Are You?
Are you a fashionista? A technorati? A literati? Or some other -ista or -ati?
I'm finding it hard to keep up with the new terms coming out to describe every little personality or career quirk people have. What is it with coming up with cutesy names to describe niche people? The latest one I read, just today, is blogarati. From the term, I can only assume that it is anyone who posts and/or reads blogs on a regular basis....I guess that makes me one of this elite class...blogarati.
I don't know. The term blogarati sounds a little more pedestrian than fashionista. A little less intelligent than literati. Could the blogarati be the Internet equivalent of trailer trash? If there are Internet catastrophes, could blogs be the first ones to suffer damage, much like it seems tornados hit trailer parks? No! We can't let that happen! This blog must be protected, if only to cut through the muck and mire that makes up a good portion of the Internet and provide you with the truth, plain and simple. No hidden agendas. No ratings grabbing headlines. No bias from so-called 'independent' journalists.
And what of blogs in general? Yes, there's a lot of crap out there. But anyone, even those that are not really tech-savvy, have the opportunity to speak their mind for the world to read, or ignore, as they see fit. How empowering is that? Information is power and the fact that any Joe or Jane off the street has the ability to provide or receive that information, is powerful indeed. The ability to speak one's mind in an open forum, if not informative, is at least cathartic, speaking from experience.
But what of the need to name anything and everything with the suffix -ista or -ati? Is it part of some grand conspiracy? Is it some innate need we all have? Does everyone feel they need to enlarge dictionaries, or add to the popular culture lexicon? Or are we all just being judgmental? Hard to say from where I sit.
To all of this, all I can say is that the people that come up with these kinds of terms are Websterati...or is that Oxfordistas?
Wings Over The World
I'm finding it hard to keep up with the new terms coming out to describe every little personality or career quirk people have. What is it with coming up with cutesy names to describe niche people? The latest one I read, just today, is blogarati. From the term, I can only assume that it is anyone who posts and/or reads blogs on a regular basis....I guess that makes me one of this elite class...blogarati.
I don't know. The term blogarati sounds a little more pedestrian than fashionista. A little less intelligent than literati. Could the blogarati be the Internet equivalent of trailer trash? If there are Internet catastrophes, could blogs be the first ones to suffer damage, much like it seems tornados hit trailer parks? No! We can't let that happen! This blog must be protected, if only to cut through the muck and mire that makes up a good portion of the Internet and provide you with the truth, plain and simple. No hidden agendas. No ratings grabbing headlines. No bias from so-called 'independent' journalists.
And what of blogs in general? Yes, there's a lot of crap out there. But anyone, even those that are not really tech-savvy, have the opportunity to speak their mind for the world to read, or ignore, as they see fit. How empowering is that? Information is power and the fact that any Joe or Jane off the street has the ability to provide or receive that information, is powerful indeed. The ability to speak one's mind in an open forum, if not informative, is at least cathartic, speaking from experience.
But what of the need to name anything and everything with the suffix -ista or -ati? Is it part of some grand conspiracy? Is it some innate need we all have? Does everyone feel they need to enlarge dictionaries, or add to the popular culture lexicon? Or are we all just being judgmental? Hard to say from where I sit.
To all of this, all I can say is that the people that come up with these kinds of terms are Websterati...or is that Oxfordistas?
Wings Over The World
July 17, 2006
The Year(s) of the Gun
This is getting out of hand. It's bad enough when there are murders, but within the past year or so, deaths caused by the use of guns has skyrcketed in Canada. Toronto has certainly seen it's share of this increase.
Why has this happened? You can fault a number of things: increasing number of gangs, reduced funding for social safety nets, more aggressiveness in the drug trade, or even people settling disagreements through the use of violence. Whatever the root cause, the implementation is the same...the use of guns.
Case in point. One of the latest murders in Toronto occurred last week when a couple left a bar late at night and got into their car. Before they drove off, someone walked up to the car and fired several shots killing the woman, and seriously injuring the man. Although the police don't have a motive yet for the shooting, they did find what they suspect is the gun used in the crime. It was purchased from a gun store in the U.S., in the state of Georgia, just a year and a half ago. The police have asked for assistance from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the investigation.
How did this gun, apparently purchased legally in the U.S., end up in the hands of someone who committed a murder in Canada, apparently without provocation? Was the gun transported by the legal purchaser? Was it stolen and transported? Whatever the method that was used, we as a society have to look at ways of eliminating these acts, or at least reducing them. We can't just ask one group, such as the police, to stop the tide.
The best way, is to reduce demand. Reduce the demand and it will make it uneconomical to supply. How do we do this? I believe the biggest factor would be to keep our kids out of gangs (again a supply and demand issue). Gangs need members for strength. Don't give them members, and they remain weak or disband. There are a number of ways to do this, but none of them can be accomplished in isolation. It requires a coordinated effort. Things like: parents getting more involved with their kids' activities; funding community centres in the poorer areas so they have afterschool programs; social programs such as daycare, big brother/sister; and a host of other initiatives.
The government and judicial system can get tougher on gun related crimes. Harsher sentences and getting tougher on crimes committed by youths. The Youth Justice Act may be a good way to handle most offences committed by those under 18, but when guns are involved? There should be a special section for that. Also, harsher sentences for those caught smuggling guns into Canada. Make it riskier for them and it's less likely to occur.
But all of this is only part of it. The U.S. has to do their part too. Yeah, okay, we get into the Constitutionality of the right to bear arms. Sure, I'll give you that, however I don't think the American Founding Fathers had roving bands of armed gangs walking around with their itchy fingers on the triggers of automatic pistols ready to shoot you just because you accidentally bump into them, in mind. Of course there are the standard reasons for owning a gun: home defence, collecting, hunting, or whatever else. But what invariably happens is that guns are stolen from legitimate owners who store them improperly (such as in their night stand). That may be a Hollywoodization of the problem, but I don't think someone who owns a gun for home defence will store it in a safe in the basement, if they're up in the bedroom when they hear a burglar entering the house.
I'm sure you can point to many of the same ills that Canadians have, with respect to social programs, such as kids getting involved in gangs, etc. Americans should look at how they can improve that situation. But every American needs to do their part, just like Canadians, in drying up the demand. Keep your kids out of gangs, whatever it takes, even if it's "tough love." Stop taking drugs. That joint you're smoking, thinking that you're not harming anybody because you're smoking it at home alone, isn't bloodless. Governments should get tougher on criminal acts involving guns, but that should be in conjunction with programs making it more difficult to legally own a gun. In Canada, the process to own a handgun seems to be a lot tougher than in the U.S.
This is just the starting point. But like the old Chinese proverb, every journey begins with that first step.
Let's take those first steps...on both sides of the Canadian-American border.
Wings Over The World
Why has this happened? You can fault a number of things: increasing number of gangs, reduced funding for social safety nets, more aggressiveness in the drug trade, or even people settling disagreements through the use of violence. Whatever the root cause, the implementation is the same...the use of guns.
Case in point. One of the latest murders in Toronto occurred last week when a couple left a bar late at night and got into their car. Before they drove off, someone walked up to the car and fired several shots killing the woman, and seriously injuring the man. Although the police don't have a motive yet for the shooting, they did find what they suspect is the gun used in the crime. It was purchased from a gun store in the U.S., in the state of Georgia, just a year and a half ago. The police have asked for assistance from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the investigation.
How did this gun, apparently purchased legally in the U.S., end up in the hands of someone who committed a murder in Canada, apparently without provocation? Was the gun transported by the legal purchaser? Was it stolen and transported? Whatever the method that was used, we as a society have to look at ways of eliminating these acts, or at least reducing them. We can't just ask one group, such as the police, to stop the tide.
The best way, is to reduce demand. Reduce the demand and it will make it uneconomical to supply. How do we do this? I believe the biggest factor would be to keep our kids out of gangs (again a supply and demand issue). Gangs need members for strength. Don't give them members, and they remain weak or disband. There are a number of ways to do this, but none of them can be accomplished in isolation. It requires a coordinated effort. Things like: parents getting more involved with their kids' activities; funding community centres in the poorer areas so they have afterschool programs; social programs such as daycare, big brother/sister; and a host of other initiatives.
The government and judicial system can get tougher on gun related crimes. Harsher sentences and getting tougher on crimes committed by youths. The Youth Justice Act may be a good way to handle most offences committed by those under 18, but when guns are involved? There should be a special section for that. Also, harsher sentences for those caught smuggling guns into Canada. Make it riskier for them and it's less likely to occur.
But all of this is only part of it. The U.S. has to do their part too. Yeah, okay, we get into the Constitutionality of the right to bear arms. Sure, I'll give you that, however I don't think the American Founding Fathers had roving bands of armed gangs walking around with their itchy fingers on the triggers of automatic pistols ready to shoot you just because you accidentally bump into them, in mind. Of course there are the standard reasons for owning a gun: home defence, collecting, hunting, or whatever else. But what invariably happens is that guns are stolen from legitimate owners who store them improperly (such as in their night stand). That may be a Hollywoodization of the problem, but I don't think someone who owns a gun for home defence will store it in a safe in the basement, if they're up in the bedroom when they hear a burglar entering the house.
I'm sure you can point to many of the same ills that Canadians have, with respect to social programs, such as kids getting involved in gangs, etc. Americans should look at how they can improve that situation. But every American needs to do their part, just like Canadians, in drying up the demand. Keep your kids out of gangs, whatever it takes, even if it's "tough love." Stop taking drugs. That joint you're smoking, thinking that you're not harming anybody because you're smoking it at home alone, isn't bloodless. Governments should get tougher on criminal acts involving guns, but that should be in conjunction with programs making it more difficult to legally own a gun. In Canada, the process to own a handgun seems to be a lot tougher than in the U.S.
This is just the starting point. But like the old Chinese proverb, every journey begins with that first step.
Let's take those first steps...on both sides of the Canadian-American border.
Wings Over The World
July 06, 2006
World Cup Fever
You've seen them. The ones with World Cup "Fever." They have the tell-tale signs. Your first hint is like the sign of a plague ship...the ever-present national flag of the team they're egging on, attached to their car. Further symptoms may indicate how far gone they are with respect to their fever, such as:
I have to admit that I'm not interested in soccer (or football, as it's called in Europe). Oh sure, I've kind of been following the standings, especially now that the competition is in the elimination round and it's down to the finals. But that's more because I work in a cosmopolitan office in a cosmopolitan city. So it's more for a little water cooler talk than actual interest in the game. Maybe I would have been more interested if the country of my birth, or of my heritage, had made it to the finals. But then again, maybe not.
Because of my lack of real interest in the sport, maybe I should rebel against all those supporters. Why don't I show everyone that I won't succumb to the "Fever." That I'm immune to the symptoms that appear, at least in four year cycles. But how? How do I wear my rebellion on my sleeve?
I think I have the answer! I'll take a cue from a movie that's opening this summer. That's right, The Pirates of the Caribbean is not only entertainment, but it's educational too. I'm going to fly the pirate flag, The Jolly Roger, on my car!
Maybe it's a little too late in this year's World Cup competition to do that, considering the competition is almost over, but it's certainly something to keep in mind when this fever reappears in about four years. I'll show everyone that I will not fall to the fever everyone else does.
When it comes to the World Cup of soccer I say, hoist the sheets, set course, and...
UP THE JOLLY ROGER!!!
Wings Over The World
- Rashes on their faces in the colours of the team they're supporting;
- The wearing of clothes in their team colours, or in more severe cases, the wearing of national flags;
- Huddling in groups around big screen TVs in bars favouring their teams, for mutual support;
- Exuberant and sometimes irrational behaviour, in the streets of the city after their team wins; and
- In extreme cases, calling in sick, coincidently on the days when their team is playing.
I have to admit that I'm not interested in soccer (or football, as it's called in Europe). Oh sure, I've kind of been following the standings, especially now that the competition is in the elimination round and it's down to the finals. But that's more because I work in a cosmopolitan office in a cosmopolitan city. So it's more for a little water cooler talk than actual interest in the game. Maybe I would have been more interested if the country of my birth, or of my heritage, had made it to the finals. But then again, maybe not.
Because of my lack of real interest in the sport, maybe I should rebel against all those supporters. Why don't I show everyone that I won't succumb to the "Fever." That I'm immune to the symptoms that appear, at least in four year cycles. But how? How do I wear my rebellion on my sleeve?
I think I have the answer! I'll take a cue from a movie that's opening this summer. That's right, The Pirates of the Caribbean is not only entertainment, but it's educational too. I'm going to fly the pirate flag, The Jolly Roger, on my car!
Maybe it's a little too late in this year's World Cup competition to do that, considering the competition is almost over, but it's certainly something to keep in mind when this fever reappears in about four years. I'll show everyone that I will not fall to the fever everyone else does.
When it comes to the World Cup of soccer I say, hoist the sheets, set course, and...
UP THE JOLLY ROGER!!!
Wings Over The World
May 17, 2006
Gun Registry Voodoo?
Politics never cease to amaze me.
Yesterday, the Canadian Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, came out with her yearly report. The purpose, for any of you that may not know, is to go through government financial accounting and report on any mismanagement, waste, etc. Basically, she works like the auditors for a company. And just like a company auditor, the Auditor General is supposed to be free from influence in rendering her opinion.
The reason I bring this up is that the first item on her list, as reported in the media, was that the gun registry that was set up by the Liberals had some apparent irregularities in how they reported its true cost. Fair enough, but apparently this has been going on since at least 2004! Ms. Fraser claims that she was facing resistance from bureaucrats in getting the information she required, but why did she wait this long to get the word out? Why didn't she bring this up before, or is there another reason?
The Conservatives announced today that they will revamp the gun registry. It has been reported that handguns and semi-automatic weapons will likely remain on the registry, but shotguns and rifles will be taken off. No doubt, a result of western-influenced gun lobbyists. A shame that this will occur since police forces are applauding its existence and use it quite often. I don't think they relish the idea of it being watered down.
I find it more than a coincidence that these two announcements happened within 24 hours of each other. Are the Conservatives influencing the supposedly independent Auditor General? Did they just take advantage of something they knew she was going to report because they got an advance copy? Did they purposely give her the information she required so the Conservatives could embarrass the Liberals? Why did this not come out sooner?
The tight reign that Prime Minister Harper has on his caucus, when it comes to them speaking with the media, is getting out of hand. We see the same couple of Conservative faces in the media, when it comes to talking about the issues. We never hear from most of the other ministers or back-benchers. Yet, when it comes to bashing the opposition members, there seems to be unending access and information from the Conservative caucus.
Conservative conspiracy? You be the judge. I'm only here to present information for you to decide. Dismiss me as a crackpot, or a conspiracy theorist looking for hidden agendas everywhere. Whatever conclusions you come to with respect to me or the Conservative government, unfortunately you won't have much help from the media because they have little access to Conservative MPs.
Wings Over The World
Yesterday, the Canadian Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, came out with her yearly report. The purpose, for any of you that may not know, is to go through government financial accounting and report on any mismanagement, waste, etc. Basically, she works like the auditors for a company. And just like a company auditor, the Auditor General is supposed to be free from influence in rendering her opinion.
The reason I bring this up is that the first item on her list, as reported in the media, was that the gun registry that was set up by the Liberals had some apparent irregularities in how they reported its true cost. Fair enough, but apparently this has been going on since at least 2004! Ms. Fraser claims that she was facing resistance from bureaucrats in getting the information she required, but why did she wait this long to get the word out? Why didn't she bring this up before, or is there another reason?
The Conservatives announced today that they will revamp the gun registry. It has been reported that handguns and semi-automatic weapons will likely remain on the registry, but shotguns and rifles will be taken off. No doubt, a result of western-influenced gun lobbyists. A shame that this will occur since police forces are applauding its existence and use it quite often. I don't think they relish the idea of it being watered down.
I find it more than a coincidence that these two announcements happened within 24 hours of each other. Are the Conservatives influencing the supposedly independent Auditor General? Did they just take advantage of something they knew she was going to report because they got an advance copy? Did they purposely give her the information she required so the Conservatives could embarrass the Liberals? Why did this not come out sooner?
The tight reign that Prime Minister Harper has on his caucus, when it comes to them speaking with the media, is getting out of hand. We see the same couple of Conservative faces in the media, when it comes to talking about the issues. We never hear from most of the other ministers or back-benchers. Yet, when it comes to bashing the opposition members, there seems to be unending access and information from the Conservative caucus.
Conservative conspiracy? You be the judge. I'm only here to present information for you to decide. Dismiss me as a crackpot, or a conspiracy theorist looking for hidden agendas everywhere. Whatever conclusions you come to with respect to me or the Conservative government, unfortunately you won't have much help from the media because they have little access to Conservative MPs.
Wings Over The World
May 16, 2006
Gas Price Fixing
With the high cost of gasoline (since last summer...before Hurricane Katrina hit), there's been a lot of talk about fixing the gas price at a set amount. Oil companies would then have to give at least two weeks notice for any increases to the price, thus giving time for consumers to adjust to the new price. This is SO a bad idea!
There is already gas price fixing on the East Coast. Nova Scotia will be the last of the four provinces to institute this practice, starting July 1st. Studies have shown that gas price fixing is actually more costly to consumers, by at least 1 cent a litre, but Nova Scotia's rationale is that their constituents want stability in pricing. Well, if world oil prices spike significantly, oil companies can apply to the province to have the two week cycle waived...How does that improve stability of gas prices at the pumps? In effect, by fixing the price of gas, the oil companies don't have to compete for your business, therefore more money pours into their already fat wallets. Yes, it will be stable...for the oil companies!
What I learned in Economics 101 is that it's all about supply and demand. The greater the supply, the lower the price to move the product. The lower the supply, the higher the price that can be commanded. As users of the product, consumers get the short end of the stick. If you're sensitive to the price of gas, then let the market forces rule and buy gas when the price is down. Consider buying gas when you still have half a tank of gas. Small price to pay for the inconvenience of filling up more often, compared to buying at whatever the price is when you're faced with the big "E" on the gas gauge.
In fact, I've noticed trends in gas pricing. Whether it's the day of the week, time of day, before a long weekend, whatever. Wherever you are (except maybe on the East Coast), take a mental note of these trends and adjust your gas buying habits accordingly. If you notice the gas price goes up just before the weekend, fill up during the middle of the week, then top up as required on the weekend, if you can't wait until the middle of the following week. Sounds simple doesn't it? Of course, those of you with those huge gas-guzzling vehicles like Hummers (which, I noticed, are decked out in nice shiny accessories, and never seem to be muddy since they're probably never taken off-road) don't have to worry because you don't really care what the price is as long as you can occupy as much space on the road and parking lots as you possibly can.
Better yet, do you really want to stick it to oil companies? Take public transit, bike, or walk. You'll be and feel healthier. Yes these options may take a little longer, and there's more effort required on your part, but you'll save money and the environment. Public transit doesn't serve you well? Write to the politicians that represent you. Contact the transit services. Still can't get out of your car? How about carpooling? Plenty of HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes popping up on the highways and city streets. If you share a car, you'll get to your destination faster. Still can't do it? There's always the last resort of buying a small gas-sipping car. If you're the only one in the vehicle, do you really need to be in a Lincoln Navigator? You can go to the other extreme and get a Smart Car. Easy on gas, easy to park. Too extreme for you? There are plenty of offerings from the North American Big 3, as well as imports, that are easy on gas. If you think you need a large vehicle to carry stuff from Home Depot, consider how often you do this and whether renting a vehicle whenever you require that kind of capacity would do the trick, instead of commuting daily in a V8 with a lot of empty space behind you. Home Depot even provides an on-the-spot rental truck service. Might save you some substantial coin in the long run.
If you complain about the price of gas, then I think something that I've said resonates with you and you can adjust your transportation needs accordingly. If you drive a large vehicle and want to keep it, well there's nothing I can say to convince you to change, so I guess we'll see your wide-butt vehicle on the roads and occupying two spaces in the parking lots.
Either way, fixing the price of gas is not the answer. Let market forces decide the price so that consumers can benefit.
As a post script, let me offer this. After Hurricane Katrina hit last September, the price of gas was about 20 cents higher per litre at the pumps than it is now, with the current cost of a barrel of oil at almost record levels. Do you really think oil companies are looking after consumers' best interest? Supply and demand. Supply and demand...
Wings Over The World
There is already gas price fixing on the East Coast. Nova Scotia will be the last of the four provinces to institute this practice, starting July 1st. Studies have shown that gas price fixing is actually more costly to consumers, by at least 1 cent a litre, but Nova Scotia's rationale is that their constituents want stability in pricing. Well, if world oil prices spike significantly, oil companies can apply to the province to have the two week cycle waived...How does that improve stability of gas prices at the pumps? In effect, by fixing the price of gas, the oil companies don't have to compete for your business, therefore more money pours into their already fat wallets. Yes, it will be stable...for the oil companies!
What I learned in Economics 101 is that it's all about supply and demand. The greater the supply, the lower the price to move the product. The lower the supply, the higher the price that can be commanded. As users of the product, consumers get the short end of the stick. If you're sensitive to the price of gas, then let the market forces rule and buy gas when the price is down. Consider buying gas when you still have half a tank of gas. Small price to pay for the inconvenience of filling up more often, compared to buying at whatever the price is when you're faced with the big "E" on the gas gauge.
In fact, I've noticed trends in gas pricing. Whether it's the day of the week, time of day, before a long weekend, whatever. Wherever you are (except maybe on the East Coast), take a mental note of these trends and adjust your gas buying habits accordingly. If you notice the gas price goes up just before the weekend, fill up during the middle of the week, then top up as required on the weekend, if you can't wait until the middle of the following week. Sounds simple doesn't it? Of course, those of you with those huge gas-guzzling vehicles like Hummers (which, I noticed, are decked out in nice shiny accessories, and never seem to be muddy since they're probably never taken off-road) don't have to worry because you don't really care what the price is as long as you can occupy as much space on the road and parking lots as you possibly can.
Better yet, do you really want to stick it to oil companies? Take public transit, bike, or walk. You'll be and feel healthier. Yes these options may take a little longer, and there's more effort required on your part, but you'll save money and the environment. Public transit doesn't serve you well? Write to the politicians that represent you. Contact the transit services. Still can't get out of your car? How about carpooling? Plenty of HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes popping up on the highways and city streets. If you share a car, you'll get to your destination faster. Still can't do it? There's always the last resort of buying a small gas-sipping car. If you're the only one in the vehicle, do you really need to be in a Lincoln Navigator? You can go to the other extreme and get a Smart Car. Easy on gas, easy to park. Too extreme for you? There are plenty of offerings from the North American Big 3, as well as imports, that are easy on gas. If you think you need a large vehicle to carry stuff from Home Depot, consider how often you do this and whether renting a vehicle whenever you require that kind of capacity would do the trick, instead of commuting daily in a V8 with a lot of empty space behind you. Home Depot even provides an on-the-spot rental truck service. Might save you some substantial coin in the long run.
If you complain about the price of gas, then I think something that I've said resonates with you and you can adjust your transportation needs accordingly. If you drive a large vehicle and want to keep it, well there's nothing I can say to convince you to change, so I guess we'll see your wide-butt vehicle on the roads and occupying two spaces in the parking lots.
Either way, fixing the price of gas is not the answer. Let market forces decide the price so that consumers can benefit.
As a post script, let me offer this. After Hurricane Katrina hit last September, the price of gas was about 20 cents higher per litre at the pumps than it is now, with the current cost of a barrel of oil at almost record levels. Do you really think oil companies are looking after consumers' best interest? Supply and demand. Supply and demand...
Wings Over The World
May 11, 2006
Flag Flap
Since this was big news last week, I'm a little late with this one, but a parliamentary inquiry was just decided on yesterday.
The issue was should the Canadian flag on the Peace Tower (at Parliament Hill) be lowered to half mast whenever a soldier is killed overseas? Previously under the Liberal government, it was, but recently when four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan were killed, Prime Minister Harper decided that this would no longer be accommodated, that they would be recognized during the national day of mourning for soldiers on Novemeber 11th, Remembrance Day.
There were certainly critics of Mr. Harper for doing this, mainly from the opposite side of the house (the Liberals and NDPers). But, surprisingly, veterans groups and many of the families of the slain soldiers are okay with this. They feel that ceremonies during November 11th were sufficient to honour their fallen comrades, sons and daughters.
The Liberals, specifically ex-Prime Minister Paul Martin, asked whether it was the Speaker of the House (a Liberal who must be non-partisan in his administration of the House) who actually had dominion, thus the authority, over whether to lower the flag over the Peace Tower. The speaker, based on his research on the responsibilities of those in question, and applying Parliamentary procedure, ruled that it was the government that was responsible for the raising and lowering of the flag, and the government is led by Prime Minister Harper. Therefore, it is his decision.
After all this political posturing, and some self-reflective thought, as much as it pains me to, I will have to say that I agree with Mr. Harper. Whatever his motivations may be (and some have accused him of taking the American route of downplaying the number of soldiers killed in overseas conflicts, so that his own political popularity doesn't suffer), I believe he is doing the right thing. Especially considering that Veterans groups also support this route.
Let's not cheapen the value of lowering the flag on the Peace Tower each time a soldier dies in conflict overseas. Unfortunately, it may come to a point when the flag will have to be at half mast for the entire year. Instead, let us honour "Our Glorious Dead" on the day that we have reserved for them since 1919, i.e. November 11th. And if you didn't do so before, now more than ever you should wear a poppy to signify your honour and respect for those that have fallen in service to their country, whether you support any of the conflicts or not. Remembrance Day is not a day for political partisanship, or protest. It has one purpose. Please honour that purpose.
Having said all that, the federal government can go one step further to honour the individuals who have sacrificed their lives in the current conflict. I suggest that on the day a soldier is buried, that all the federal buildings in the town, city or county where the soldiers are being buried, should lower their flags on that day. It's the least they can do. This way, it becomes more personalized where a home town can honour one of their fallen sons or daughters.
And this thing about the media showing soldiers on their final journey home in a casket. The military will no longer allow the media on military property to film this, in deference to the fallen soldiers' families, they say. I've seen some of the coverage that has occurred in the past and I would have to disagree with the military (who probably got their orders from the Prime Minister to take this action) on this one. The media has been very respectful. They set their cameras up at a distance, and they do not impose on the mourning families. Surely the military can allow this so the entire country can mourn with the families. Some people have spoken out that they would like to go through a mourning process too. Soldiers have died in service to our country, we should be allowed to pay our respects. If, however, the families do not wish media coverage of the funeral service so that they may have a private ceremony, certainly we must give them that.
Wings Over The World
The issue was should the Canadian flag on the Peace Tower (at Parliament Hill) be lowered to half mast whenever a soldier is killed overseas? Previously under the Liberal government, it was, but recently when four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan were killed, Prime Minister Harper decided that this would no longer be accommodated, that they would be recognized during the national day of mourning for soldiers on Novemeber 11th, Remembrance Day.
There were certainly critics of Mr. Harper for doing this, mainly from the opposite side of the house (the Liberals and NDPers). But, surprisingly, veterans groups and many of the families of the slain soldiers are okay with this. They feel that ceremonies during November 11th were sufficient to honour their fallen comrades, sons and daughters.
The Liberals, specifically ex-Prime Minister Paul Martin, asked whether it was the Speaker of the House (a Liberal who must be non-partisan in his administration of the House) who actually had dominion, thus the authority, over whether to lower the flag over the Peace Tower. The speaker, based on his research on the responsibilities of those in question, and applying Parliamentary procedure, ruled that it was the government that was responsible for the raising and lowering of the flag, and the government is led by Prime Minister Harper. Therefore, it is his decision.
After all this political posturing, and some self-reflective thought, as much as it pains me to, I will have to say that I agree with Mr. Harper. Whatever his motivations may be (and some have accused him of taking the American route of downplaying the number of soldiers killed in overseas conflicts, so that his own political popularity doesn't suffer), I believe he is doing the right thing. Especially considering that Veterans groups also support this route.
Let's not cheapen the value of lowering the flag on the Peace Tower each time a soldier dies in conflict overseas. Unfortunately, it may come to a point when the flag will have to be at half mast for the entire year. Instead, let us honour "Our Glorious Dead" on the day that we have reserved for them since 1919, i.e. November 11th. And if you didn't do so before, now more than ever you should wear a poppy to signify your honour and respect for those that have fallen in service to their country, whether you support any of the conflicts or not. Remembrance Day is not a day for political partisanship, or protest. It has one purpose. Please honour that purpose.
Having said all that, the federal government can go one step further to honour the individuals who have sacrificed their lives in the current conflict. I suggest that on the day a soldier is buried, that all the federal buildings in the town, city or county where the soldiers are being buried, should lower their flags on that day. It's the least they can do. This way, it becomes more personalized where a home town can honour one of their fallen sons or daughters.
And this thing about the media showing soldiers on their final journey home in a casket. The military will no longer allow the media on military property to film this, in deference to the fallen soldiers' families, they say. I've seen some of the coverage that has occurred in the past and I would have to disagree with the military (who probably got their orders from the Prime Minister to take this action) on this one. The media has been very respectful. They set their cameras up at a distance, and they do not impose on the mourning families. Surely the military can allow this so the entire country can mourn with the families. Some people have spoken out that they would like to go through a mourning process too. Soldiers have died in service to our country, we should be allowed to pay our respects. If, however, the families do not wish media coverage of the funeral service so that they may have a private ceremony, certainly we must give them that.
Wings Over The World
May 08, 2006
Supreme Court Ruling on Drinking at a House Party
I have to say that I support the Canadian Supreme Court's ruling that 'Social Hosts,' i.e. the hosts at a private house party, are not responsible for any of their guests that drive home drunk and get into an accident. This in no way means I condone drinking and driving, I just think that if someone hosts a party and one of their guests gets into accident and is found to be drunk, that the host should not bear unlimited liability for the accident.
A number of years ago, public bars went through this same issue. Their argument was that they should not be held responsible. However, the situation is different in the case of bars, as opposed to the recent ruling. At a bar, you are not allowed to bring outside drinks in, and the alcohol is distributed from a central point. Staff, who are agents of the bar, and have had some experience dealing with patrons and can monitor alcoholic intake of the people they serve, can cut people off when it comes to subsequent drink orders. Therefore, the consumption of alcohol is strictly controlled. Not so, at a house party.
At a house party, the host may provide alcohol, or it might be BYOB (Bring Your Own Booze), or someone might just sneak a bottle in. Since the host cannot entirely control the flow of drinks, how can they have a duty of care to ensure that their guests do not drive home drunk? In fact, if the host was to be find liable, then I would say that every person who attended the party had a similar liability, since they all had the opportunity to observe the actions of a guest and dissuade that person from driving if they had too much to drink. Just think of the anti-drinking and driving campaign slogan of "friends don't let friends drink and drive."
I'm not saying that this should absolve hosts from being responsible in their administering a party. Of course they should do what they can to ensure all their guests, as well as the community at large, are safe. When court judgements are made, the test is what would the "reasonable man" do, i.e. what is common sense? I can get into a whole rant about common sense, but that's for another time. Right now, I'm just saying that party hosts should not have unlimited liability for their guests. If they did, then there wouldn't be any parties because people would be afraid to invite people over. That would be a stark world indeed.
My advice to party hosts: continue throwing parties, but don't let them get too big; make sure you know everybody, or at least know someone who can vouch for guests you don't know; and if the booze is flowing, keep an eye on anyone who seems to be drinking excessively and make sure you ask for their car keys -- better yet, ask 2 or 3 people to help you watch that person.
My advice to party goers: if you're going to drink, don't drive -- take a taxi, get a ride, take transit, or arrange to sleep over; if you see someone at the party drinking excessively, let the host know and keep an eye on them; if you suspect someone is drunk, help the host in deterring them from driving.
I thought we were already living in a culture where it was unacceptable to drink and drive, but obviously there are still many people that do. As with many things, we have to look out for each other. Don't let someone's bravado dissuade you from doing what you know is right.
Wings Over The World
A number of years ago, public bars went through this same issue. Their argument was that they should not be held responsible. However, the situation is different in the case of bars, as opposed to the recent ruling. At a bar, you are not allowed to bring outside drinks in, and the alcohol is distributed from a central point. Staff, who are agents of the bar, and have had some experience dealing with patrons and can monitor alcoholic intake of the people they serve, can cut people off when it comes to subsequent drink orders. Therefore, the consumption of alcohol is strictly controlled. Not so, at a house party.
At a house party, the host may provide alcohol, or it might be BYOB (Bring Your Own Booze), or someone might just sneak a bottle in. Since the host cannot entirely control the flow of drinks, how can they have a duty of care to ensure that their guests do not drive home drunk? In fact, if the host was to be find liable, then I would say that every person who attended the party had a similar liability, since they all had the opportunity to observe the actions of a guest and dissuade that person from driving if they had too much to drink. Just think of the anti-drinking and driving campaign slogan of "friends don't let friends drink and drive."
I'm not saying that this should absolve hosts from being responsible in their administering a party. Of course they should do what they can to ensure all their guests, as well as the community at large, are safe. When court judgements are made, the test is what would the "reasonable man" do, i.e. what is common sense? I can get into a whole rant about common sense, but that's for another time. Right now, I'm just saying that party hosts should not have unlimited liability for their guests. If they did, then there wouldn't be any parties because people would be afraid to invite people over. That would be a stark world indeed.
My advice to party hosts: continue throwing parties, but don't let them get too big; make sure you know everybody, or at least know someone who can vouch for guests you don't know; and if the booze is flowing, keep an eye on anyone who seems to be drinking excessively and make sure you ask for their car keys -- better yet, ask 2 or 3 people to help you watch that person.
My advice to party goers: if you're going to drink, don't drive -- take a taxi, get a ride, take transit, or arrange to sleep over; if you see someone at the party drinking excessively, let the host know and keep an eye on them; if you suspect someone is drunk, help the host in deterring them from driving.
I thought we were already living in a culture where it was unacceptable to drink and drive, but obviously there are still many people that do. As with many things, we have to look out for each other. Don't let someone's bravado dissuade you from doing what you know is right.
Wings Over The World
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)