"White Man's Guilt" or religious intolerance?
This is the scenario: Madam Justice Marion Cohen bans the display of a Christmas tree at the entrance of her courthouse and relegates it to a side hall. As senior judge of this particular courthouse in Toronto, she has the authority to do so.
Her reason? It was given to the staff via an e-mail that went like this, "However beautiful Christams trees may be - and I do find them beautiful - a Christmas tree is a traditional Chrisitian symbol. The message to many who attend our court and are confronted with this symbol is that they are not part of this institution. I do not think it is appropriate that the first thing people see when they enter is a Christian symbol."
Of course the media was plastered with this incident. A week later it still gets written about in the newspaper. What was the fallout? Jewish groups were interviewed - they had no problems with the tree being displayed at the front entrance. Muslim groups were interviewed - they had no problems with the tree at the front. The Premier of Ontario Dalton McGuinty apparently discussed the issue with the Madam Justice to no avail. Not one politician or religious group came to her defence, that I saw. Then why did she do it?
Is this a case of "White Man's Guilt?" That a White person feels guilty of past oppressions, or is trying too hard to be politically correct in order not to offend anyone. There is another possibility that I have yet to hear anyone broach, because they're probably too afraid to, lest they be labelled racist. And reading this, that may be your first reaction. But let may say it, read the rest of this posting, then judge me. You can even go as far as to submit your comments. So here it is... Her name is Madame Justice Marion Cohen. I'm not certain if she is, nobody's mentioned it, but the name appears Jewish to me. Is this a case of her be offended by this Christian symbol and using her position to get her way? Only she knows the true answer to this.
In a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood of Toronto, there is a giant Menorah. During Hanukkah, it is lit. It's in a very public place. What do you think the reaction would have been had somebody had the cajones to ban this important Jewish symbol from the public space, or relegate it to some hidden area?
No. Religious symbols such as a Christmas tree or Menorah should not be banned from public spaces. Canada is made up of a diverse population with many religious beliefs. The Canadian Constitution even guarantees the right to practice your religion without fear of persecution. Isn't the banning of a Christmas tree from the front entrance of a courthouse religious persecution? This is the act of a single person, not a government mandated policy.
I work for a company that has many non-Christians working for it. I do not harbour any ill will if some of them leave early because they must pray at sunset, or they take Jewish holidays off, or they take a few extra days during Christmas, even Orthodox Christmas, to be with their families. It's part of the diversity that makes up this country.
The ill will I do harbour is towards those that are intolerant towards those of other beliefs, and they get away with it under the guise of "equality" for all. Banning a Christmas tree is not equality.
Madam Justice, why don't you come out and tell us the real reason you banned the Christmas tree. If you did it because of what I suggested, then say so and apologize for it. You stand alone because nobody has come to your defense.
To those that may try something similar in the future, using the Madam Justice's incident to justify your actions, this will just lead to an escalation of religious intolerance. We have enough intolerance in this world, we don't need to start a war with this incident as the genesis.
Merry Christmas
Happy Hannukah
Happy Kwanzaa
Happy Holidays
Wings Over The World
P.S. Take note that I did not include a Muslim symbol because I'm not familiar with as public a symbol as those I mention for Christians and Jews. I do not mean any offence. I would have included one had I been aware of one when I wrote this. I just wanted to head off any comments.
December 23, 2006
December 14, 2006
Not playing with a full deck
I heard it reported that there is speculation Prime Minister Stephen Harper is going to shuffle his cabinet in the New Year.
Hmmm....Less than a year and he wants to move people around. Maybe it's been tough to muzzle the cabinet ministers he currently has and he wants some real wallflowers surrounding him. Or maybe Ms. Rona Ambrose is getting too much flak over the Conservative policy on the environment that he wants somebody with tougher skin holding the Environment Minister's post.
My suggestion. How about Mr. Harper shuffle his position to Mr. McKay. I stated previously that Peter seems to have (mostly) gotten over his break up with Belinda. Of course there's the occasional comment in the House that has a bit of bitterness in its tone. But I'm sure that would disappear once he takes over the top job. (Maybe they broke up because a compounding of their names doesn't sound as good as Brangelina or Bennifer -- Pelinda? Beleter?)
Yup, maybe a little cabinet shuffle will do the government good. If only we could get rid of some of the jokers in the deck.
Wings Over The World
Hmmm....Less than a year and he wants to move people around. Maybe it's been tough to muzzle the cabinet ministers he currently has and he wants some real wallflowers surrounding him. Or maybe Ms. Rona Ambrose is getting too much flak over the Conservative policy on the environment that he wants somebody with tougher skin holding the Environment Minister's post.
My suggestion. How about Mr. Harper shuffle his position to Mr. McKay. I stated previously that Peter seems to have (mostly) gotten over his break up with Belinda. Of course there's the occasional comment in the House that has a bit of bitterness in its tone. But I'm sure that would disappear once he takes over the top job. (Maybe they broke up because a compounding of their names doesn't sound as good as Brangelina or Bennifer -- Pelinda? Beleter?)
Yup, maybe a little cabinet shuffle will do the government good. If only we could get rid of some of the jokers in the deck.
Wings Over The World
December 07, 2006
Stephane Dion. Liberal leader or "modern man?"
I've written about dual citizenship before. This issue came up last summer with the whole evacuation-of-dual-citizenship-Canadians-from-Lebanon-during-the-strife-that-went-on-with-Israel thing. My conclusion was that as long as the Canadian government has a policy to support dual citizenship, that they need to support their policy, not just when they think it's convenient. The important thing was there not be two class of citizens, within that policy, unless specifically stated otherwise (I added this last bit for the purpose of this entry).
The exceptions to dual citizenship should be made clear to the people who immigrate to Canada, or Canadians seeking other citizenships, as well as what the consequences of their actions would be.
One policy that should be implemented, and has been making the news of late, is that some politicians and political appointments currently hold dual citizenship. The most recent case to make the news? The newly minted federal Liberal leader, Stephane Dion. He also holds French citizenship, through his mother.
Mr. Dion's defence? He doesn't think it's an issue. He "is 100 percent to Canada first." Well, if that's the case, then he should give up his French citizenship. Even if there is no conflict of interest, he should take the high ground because there is a perception of a conflict of interest. Ask any lawyer and they'll tell you the same thing.
If you decide to go into Canadian politics, or the politics of any country for that matter, you must renounce citizenships of any other country that you may hold. Canada's Governor General Michaelle Jean renounced her French citizenship when she felt the pressure. And why not? As Canada's appointed head of state and commander-in-chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, there should be no question of her loyalty to Canada and its citizens.
So why is it that Mr. Dion is choosing not to renounce his French citizenship? I can't even venture a guess.
In fact, it has been reported that approximately 40 of the over 300 MPs in Ottawa have dual citizenship, represented by three of the major parties (Conservatives, Liberals and NDPers). None of the other parties have the right to criticize Mr. Dion (let he who is without sin, cast the first stone comes to mind), but that doesn't make it right. In fact, NDP leader Jack Layton stated that Mr. Dion should renounce his French citizenship, although he qualified it by saying that the leader of any party should do so. Why did he qualify his stance? His wife Olivia Chow, who is a part of his NDP caucus, holds dual citizenship. You can bet Mr. Layton would have gotten an ear full over dinner that night if he pressed harder.
When you hold public office, then you must renounce any significant allegiance outside of Canada, especially citizenship. More so for Federal politicians than lower levels of government, because by their very nature, they are dealing with foreign governments. If Mr. Dion becomes Prime Minister and an issue regarding France comes up, will he excuse himself from the debate, as well as the vote? Not acceptable! If in the future you return to private life, then I see no issue with regaining renounced citizenships. I'm sure most countries would allow this.
Politicians, because they are public figures and our representatives in government, are held to a higher standard. They are a reflection of their constituents and their country, in the eyes of the rest of the world. To Stephane Dion (Liberal), Vic Toews (Conservative), Tony Clement (Conservative), Olivia Chow (NDP), and all the rest in Ottawa who hold foreign citizenships I say this, renounce any citizenships and significant allegiances outside of Canada, or step down. Simple as that.
Don't believe that this is good idea? Just ask separatist Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe. He doesn't see a problem with Mr. Dion holding dual French citizenship. Do I need to say more?
Wings Over The World
(photo courtesy of www.ctv.ca)
November 27, 2006
Is Quebec a Nation?
Before I begin, let me provide you with a couple of definitions from my Oxford dictionary:
Nation: large number of people of mainly common descent, language, history, etc., usually inhabiting a territory bounded by defined limits and forming a society under one government.
Federal: 1. of a system of government in which several States form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs; concerning this whole and not the separate parts. 2. relating to or favouring central government, as distinguished from government by separate provinces, etc.
The French definition of Nation was taken from here and is: L'ensemble des personnes nées ou naturalisées dans un pays et vivant sous un même gouvernement. It loosely translates to: Assembly of people originating or naturalizing in a country and living under the same government. Strictly speaking, not quite the same as the English definition.
The issue: is Quebec a nation? I cannot speak from a French viewpoint, since I’m not a Quebec Francophone. But I would like to explore this notion from an English perspective.
There has been a lot of discussion in the media lately about recognizing Quebec as a nation, since Prime Minister Harper entered a motion to recognize Quebec as a nation “within a united Canada.” Here is Hansard’s transcript of the speeches by the party leaders in the House. This act effectively took the wind out of the sails of a motion that was to be tabled by the Bloc Quebecois (herein referred to as “The Bloc” as they are more commonly known in English Canada) the following day to just recognize Quebec as a nation, with no mention of Canada. Was this an end run by the Conservative government, or are they playing right into The Bloc’s strategy? Politicos are taking sides and fewer and fewer are mincing words.
This issue has dogged the country since the time before the Confederation of Canada in 1867, going back to when Wolfe defeated Montcalm on The Plains of Abraham in 1759. A primer on the formation of Canada can be found on Wikipedia.
I cannot accept a Quebec Nation, not only because of the definition of the word (for reasons that will become clear), but also because of the logic the Separatists are using.
The Separatists use the argument that they are from a French tradition, with a distinct language and culture, therefore they are separate from the rest of Canada. Using that logic, if you accept Darwinism, and the fact that homo sapiens got their start in Africa, as well as the fact that people of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, et al live in the Americas, then by extension, we are all African-Americans, regardless of the colour of our skin!
The lunacy of this statement gives you a glimpse at the untenable Bloc position that Quebecers are one of the founding groups of Canada, therefore they must be recognized as a nation. They refuse to allow that Acadians, Newfoundlanders, Albertans and even Ukrainians were also founding groups of Canada. Also, that Canada is currently a country that has large groups of ethnically diverse immigrants. Canada is a country of immigrants, with diverse languages and cultures, made up of people where a significant portion of the population do not claim English or French as their first language. If the rest of Canada confirms that Quebec is a nation, by the Spearatists definition, does that mean the predominatly English-speaking people of Westmount, a neighbourhood in Montreal, also be recognized as a nation by the Quebec Assembly (provincial government)?
Should we declare any concentration of an ethnic group as a nation? Should the Chinatown of each city be declared a nation (the Greater Toronto Area has at least two major areas, with several smaller ones)? Should a predominantly Ukrainian neighbourhood in Saskatoon be declared a nation? What about a bunch of environmentalists in Vancouver? Where does it end?
According to the 2001 Census data, 9.97 million people cited the British Isles (English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh) as their origin, and 4.71 million have French (French, Acadian) origins. But you must also consider that 2.74 million are of German descent, 1.32 million are Aboriginals, 1.27 million are Italian, 1.09 million are Chinese, and 1.07 million are Ukrainian. Using Separatist logic, all of these groups, and more, should be recognized as nations.
Although the French definition, and common viewpoint within Quebec, may allow Quebec to be a nation within a united Canada, that is certainly not the view of Separatists and their arguments to get Quebec voters onside. There can be no acceptance of the Bloc’s notion of Quebec as a nation, because let’s face it, if they are able to get official, legal, recognition as a nation, a sovereign nation is just an adjective away.
This act is isolationist. If the Separatists are trying to be isolationists, what reactions would they invoke? Will it cause other provinces to pull the plug on publicly-funded French programming? Will those Francophones living in other provinces be isolated from their “homeland” because of this short-sightedness? Isn’t this something the Bloc would vociferously campaign against; that which is exactly what they’re trying to do to non-Francophones within Quebec? What better way to promote Quebec/French culture than to spread it amongst all Canadians, using the province of Quebec as a basis of a concentrated grouping of the culture?
The Bloc, a.k.a. “Blocheads” as coined by some political commentators, would lead you to believe that recognizing Quebec as a nation protects their language and culture. But the gains Francophones have made within Canada outweigh any possible additional benefits. They have gained equal language status in the Federal and New Brunswick governments, with Ontario providing more and more services in French. Access to French language and culture is available across Canada, if not from cable companies, certainly from satellite providers. The Quebec government has a lot of autonomy in their governing at the provincial level (they control some aspects that no other province has the legal authority to do). What possible additional benefit could they want? Equal status as Canada on the world stage? Representation at the United Nations? The Bloc think they can do all of this while retaining the Canadian Dollar as their currency, and retaining their Canadian passports.
The Bloc was formed by Lucien Bouchard and his cronies in 1990 for the sole purpose of separating Quebec from Canada. When he formed the Bloc, he stated that it was a temporary party and that it would only last until the next Referendum. The sovereigntists were narrowly defeated in 1995, but the Bloc did not dissolve. They just won’t go away until they do win a referendum, which apparently they will hold at least once every decade. Reminds me of a two-year old that kicks and screams and cries until they get their way.
The reality is a sovereign Quebec would not last long. Economically, it is unlikely they could make a go of it, while still retaining their current standards. Some nations from around the globe that have tried might give some insight into Quebec prospects. A Quebec currency would have little effect on the world markets. Exporters and importers would demand to do business in US Dollars or Euros. Inflation in Quebec would likely rise to unmanageable levels. The standard of living would decline. Quebec’s only resource is its mineral deposits, which are finite, and its hydro-electric generating capacity. They are a net importer of oil, so their treasury could not fall back on oil’s rising prices. But as their population grows, less and less of Quebec’s resources will be available for export. In the end, if they do not return to the Canada fold, they will be forced to join the United States (who would remove their new found freedoms), or the European Union, where they would have to fall in line with the other member states.
Canada deserves Quebec, just as Quebec deserves Canada. Not in a derogatory, nyah nyah manner, but in an ethnically diverse, tolerant, and prosperous sense. All the cultures that make up a Federal Canada make the country the envy of the world. What other country has taken within its borders and made citizens such a diverse group of cultures, where the people have learned to live and govern together? Where multi-culturism, rather assimilation rule? Sure its citizens have their difficulties, just like any family. But that does not mean it should just be chucked onto the garbage heap. The Quebec culture has come to symbolize Canada, just as much as the scarlet tunics of the RCMP and maple syrup have. It's part of the citizens' Canadianess.
Let me leave you with one final definition from my Oxford dictionary:
Notion: general concept under which (a) particular thing may be classed.
Quebec is a notion, not a nation. Much like Newfoundlanders, Acadians and Albertans are. I'm not trying to diminish Quebec's contributions to Canada. On the contrary. The country is stronger with Quebec, as well as all these other groups and more, than without. The acts of a few “Blocheads” kicking and crying and screaming RE-COUNT should not change this. If anything, the Blocheads should be sent to their room without any supper.
Wings Over The World
Nation: large number of people of mainly common descent, language, history, etc., usually inhabiting a territory bounded by defined limits and forming a society under one government.
Federal: 1. of a system of government in which several States form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs; concerning this whole and not the separate parts. 2. relating to or favouring central government, as distinguished from government by separate provinces, etc.
The French definition of Nation was taken from here and is: L'ensemble des personnes nées ou naturalisées dans un pays et vivant sous un même gouvernement. It loosely translates to: Assembly of people originating or naturalizing in a country and living under the same government. Strictly speaking, not quite the same as the English definition.
The issue: is Quebec a nation? I cannot speak from a French viewpoint, since I’m not a Quebec Francophone. But I would like to explore this notion from an English perspective.
There has been a lot of discussion in the media lately about recognizing Quebec as a nation, since Prime Minister Harper entered a motion to recognize Quebec as a nation “within a united Canada.” Here is Hansard’s transcript of the speeches by the party leaders in the House. This act effectively took the wind out of the sails of a motion that was to be tabled by the Bloc Quebecois (herein referred to as “The Bloc” as they are more commonly known in English Canada) the following day to just recognize Quebec as a nation, with no mention of Canada. Was this an end run by the Conservative government, or are they playing right into The Bloc’s strategy? Politicos are taking sides and fewer and fewer are mincing words.
This issue has dogged the country since the time before the Confederation of Canada in 1867, going back to when Wolfe defeated Montcalm on The Plains of Abraham in 1759. A primer on the formation of Canada can be found on Wikipedia.
I cannot accept a Quebec Nation, not only because of the definition of the word (for reasons that will become clear), but also because of the logic the Separatists are using.
The Separatists use the argument that they are from a French tradition, with a distinct language and culture, therefore they are separate from the rest of Canada. Using that logic, if you accept Darwinism, and the fact that homo sapiens got their start in Africa, as well as the fact that people of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, et al live in the Americas, then by extension, we are all African-Americans, regardless of the colour of our skin!
The lunacy of this statement gives you a glimpse at the untenable Bloc position that Quebecers are one of the founding groups of Canada, therefore they must be recognized as a nation. They refuse to allow that Acadians, Newfoundlanders, Albertans and even Ukrainians were also founding groups of Canada. Also, that Canada is currently a country that has large groups of ethnically diverse immigrants. Canada is a country of immigrants, with diverse languages and cultures, made up of people where a significant portion of the population do not claim English or French as their first language. If the rest of Canada confirms that Quebec is a nation, by the Spearatists definition, does that mean the predominatly English-speaking people of Westmount, a neighbourhood in Montreal, also be recognized as a nation by the Quebec Assembly (provincial government)?
Should we declare any concentration of an ethnic group as a nation? Should the Chinatown of each city be declared a nation (the Greater Toronto Area has at least two major areas, with several smaller ones)? Should a predominantly Ukrainian neighbourhood in Saskatoon be declared a nation? What about a bunch of environmentalists in Vancouver? Where does it end?
According to the 2001 Census data, 9.97 million people cited the British Isles (English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh) as their origin, and 4.71 million have French (French, Acadian) origins. But you must also consider that 2.74 million are of German descent, 1.32 million are Aboriginals, 1.27 million are Italian, 1.09 million are Chinese, and 1.07 million are Ukrainian. Using Separatist logic, all of these groups, and more, should be recognized as nations.
Although the French definition, and common viewpoint within Quebec, may allow Quebec to be a nation within a united Canada, that is certainly not the view of Separatists and their arguments to get Quebec voters onside. There can be no acceptance of the Bloc’s notion of Quebec as a nation, because let’s face it, if they are able to get official, legal, recognition as a nation, a sovereign nation is just an adjective away.
This act is isolationist. If the Separatists are trying to be isolationists, what reactions would they invoke? Will it cause other provinces to pull the plug on publicly-funded French programming? Will those Francophones living in other provinces be isolated from their “homeland” because of this short-sightedness? Isn’t this something the Bloc would vociferously campaign against; that which is exactly what they’re trying to do to non-Francophones within Quebec? What better way to promote Quebec/French culture than to spread it amongst all Canadians, using the province of Quebec as a basis of a concentrated grouping of the culture?
The Bloc, a.k.a. “Blocheads” as coined by some political commentators, would lead you to believe that recognizing Quebec as a nation protects their language and culture. But the gains Francophones have made within Canada outweigh any possible additional benefits. They have gained equal language status in the Federal and New Brunswick governments, with Ontario providing more and more services in French. Access to French language and culture is available across Canada, if not from cable companies, certainly from satellite providers. The Quebec government has a lot of autonomy in their governing at the provincial level (they control some aspects that no other province has the legal authority to do). What possible additional benefit could they want? Equal status as Canada on the world stage? Representation at the United Nations? The Bloc think they can do all of this while retaining the Canadian Dollar as their currency, and retaining their Canadian passports.
The Bloc was formed by Lucien Bouchard and his cronies in 1990 for the sole purpose of separating Quebec from Canada. When he formed the Bloc, he stated that it was a temporary party and that it would only last until the next Referendum. The sovereigntists were narrowly defeated in 1995, but the Bloc did not dissolve. They just won’t go away until they do win a referendum, which apparently they will hold at least once every decade. Reminds me of a two-year old that kicks and screams and cries until they get their way.
The reality is a sovereign Quebec would not last long. Economically, it is unlikely they could make a go of it, while still retaining their current standards. Some nations from around the globe that have tried might give some insight into Quebec prospects. A Quebec currency would have little effect on the world markets. Exporters and importers would demand to do business in US Dollars or Euros. Inflation in Quebec would likely rise to unmanageable levels. The standard of living would decline. Quebec’s only resource is its mineral deposits, which are finite, and its hydro-electric generating capacity. They are a net importer of oil, so their treasury could not fall back on oil’s rising prices. But as their population grows, less and less of Quebec’s resources will be available for export. In the end, if they do not return to the Canada fold, they will be forced to join the United States (who would remove their new found freedoms), or the European Union, where they would have to fall in line with the other member states.
Canada deserves Quebec, just as Quebec deserves Canada. Not in a derogatory, nyah nyah manner, but in an ethnically diverse, tolerant, and prosperous sense. All the cultures that make up a Federal Canada make the country the envy of the world. What other country has taken within its borders and made citizens such a diverse group of cultures, where the people have learned to live and govern together? Where multi-culturism, rather assimilation rule? Sure its citizens have their difficulties, just like any family. But that does not mean it should just be chucked onto the garbage heap. The Quebec culture has come to symbolize Canada, just as much as the scarlet tunics of the RCMP and maple syrup have. It's part of the citizens' Canadianess.
Let me leave you with one final definition from my Oxford dictionary:
Notion: general concept under which (a) particular thing may be classed.
Quebec is a notion, not a nation. Much like Newfoundlanders, Acadians and Albertans are. I'm not trying to diminish Quebec's contributions to Canada. On the contrary. The country is stronger with Quebec, as well as all these other groups and more, than without. The acts of a few “Blocheads” kicking and crying and screaming RE-COUNT should not change this. If anything, the Blocheads should be sent to their room without any supper.
Wings Over The World
November 24, 2006
Reverse Onus a Constitutional Challenge?
I think not.
Yesterday, Prime Minister Harper announced the intent to introduce “reverse onus” legislation to stem the tide of gun crimes. In a nutshell, reverse onus means that the defendant must prove that they are not a danger to the public if they receive bail, rather than the prosecution proving that they are.
Until the wording of the legislation is released, we’re not sure how it will be employed. However, the PM has stated that it will only kick in during a second offence, after a previous conviction of a gun-related crime. I’ve been a critic of many of Mr. Harper’s ramblings, but I must give him kudos for this one.
The fact that, “Some lawyers were outraged by the move, arguing it would create a false impression that gun crime is being addressed, while potentially imprisoning innocent people along with criminals,” is a non-issue. Defence lawyers and civil libertarians should just keep quiet on this one.
If you are convicted of a gun crime, and you are caught with a gun in your hand during the commission of another crime, what possible scenario could there be that you’re “innocent?” Yes, there may be insufficient evidence to convict, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t potentially a danger to the public.
The statistic they reported is that out of 1,000 crimes committed involving a firearm or restricted weapon this year in Toronto, 40% were committed by people on “bail, parole, temporary absence or probation.” I’d certainly want the potential of a 40%, or more, reduction in gun-related crime, wouldn’t you?
This is not a Constitutional challenge, as the potential legislation has been presented thus far. This is a case where the societal good outweighs any benefit that might come from striking the legislation down. And the Justices will concur. Gun crimes are getting out of hand, and a simple slap on the wrist punishment is insufficient. Certainly, prevention is key. Let’s find ways to keep our kids getting involved with gangs. But failing that, a little tough love might be in order.
To the defence lawyers I say this: How about you save taxpayers a few bucks in court costs and stop rattling your sabres over a Constitutional challenge? If your client has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar for a second time, and they’re “innocent,” they’ll have the opportunity to give reasons to the judge to allow bail.
Wings Over The World
Yesterday, Prime Minister Harper announced the intent to introduce “reverse onus” legislation to stem the tide of gun crimes. In a nutshell, reverse onus means that the defendant must prove that they are not a danger to the public if they receive bail, rather than the prosecution proving that they are.
Until the wording of the legislation is released, we’re not sure how it will be employed. However, the PM has stated that it will only kick in during a second offence, after a previous conviction of a gun-related crime. I’ve been a critic of many of Mr. Harper’s ramblings, but I must give him kudos for this one.
The fact that, “Some lawyers were outraged by the move, arguing it would create a false impression that gun crime is being addressed, while potentially imprisoning innocent people along with criminals,” is a non-issue. Defence lawyers and civil libertarians should just keep quiet on this one.
If you are convicted of a gun crime, and you are caught with a gun in your hand during the commission of another crime, what possible scenario could there be that you’re “innocent?” Yes, there may be insufficient evidence to convict, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t potentially a danger to the public.
The statistic they reported is that out of 1,000 crimes committed involving a firearm or restricted weapon this year in Toronto, 40% were committed by people on “bail, parole, temporary absence or probation.” I’d certainly want the potential of a 40%, or more, reduction in gun-related crime, wouldn’t you?
This is not a Constitutional challenge, as the potential legislation has been presented thus far. This is a case where the societal good outweighs any benefit that might come from striking the legislation down. And the Justices will concur. Gun crimes are getting out of hand, and a simple slap on the wrist punishment is insufficient. Certainly, prevention is key. Let’s find ways to keep our kids getting involved with gangs. But failing that, a little tough love might be in order.
To the defence lawyers I say this: How about you save taxpayers a few bucks in court costs and stop rattling your sabres over a Constitutional challenge? If your client has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar for a second time, and they’re “innocent,” they’ll have the opportunity to give reasons to the judge to allow bail.
Wings Over The World
November 22, 2006
Buying Votes...Selling "Traditional Family Values"
The Canadian Conservative government never ceases to amaze, and delight me (in a forehead slapping “DOH!” kind of way).
Their latest antic? Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, was floating some possible budget ideas in an obvious attempt at gaining media, and thus voter, reaction to his proposals. One item that stuck out and got some media play was the idea of income splitting. In short, if one spouse made significantly more than the other, then the higher income earner can assign some of their income to the lower wage earner in order to reduce the couple’s tax burden. The greatest benefit from this scheme coming from the lower income spouse not generating any income at all.
Of course, the media’s usual man-in-the-street reactions were required, because the issue dealt with money and politics. Usually, I’m not one to pay attention to these, except for maybe a little bit of levity, since occasionally I hear a comment coming out of someone’s mouth that is one step above the antics of monkeys at the zoo. However, some people did make some interesting comments for this story. And it wasn’t just about what they said, but also what they didn’t say.
Those that were married obviously liked the idea. But the single people made a good point. Income splitting “discriminates against single people.” Of course it does. But it’s just this kind of tax break that gets good political mileage, just like a GST cut does, even though a GST cut is worse than just giving everyone an income tax rate cut across the board, like the Liberals did just prior to the election.
What these man-on-the-street interviews didn’t highlight is the fact that an income splitting scheme not only discriminates against single people, more specifically, it discriminates against single parents, the people that need a tax break the most! In addition, because the greatest benefit of the scheme comes from the maximum disparity of the two incomes, it also encourages one of the spouses to stay at home and be with the kids!
What the media failed to do is put two and two together and realize that income splitting is just another perk for the traditional family values agenda being pushed by the Conservatives. If you’re good and are married (soon to be defined as between a man and a woman, if the Conservatives have their way), then they’ll reward you with some tax breaks. One of you stays at home with the kids, and they’ll reward you even more.
Shameless.
I fear that the majority of Canadians are not going to penetrate the Conservatives’ thinly-veiled attempts at society regression through political points achieved where it hits Canadians the most…their pocketbook. What I mean by society regression is that the Conservatives are attempting to reduce or relinquish the gains people in our society have achieved, through the courts, as well as through legislation. Societies change and from my other postings, you’ll see I’m a proponent of community standards. Obviously, there is a large segment of society that supports things like gay marriage, and single parenthood. But these things don’t fit in with the Conservative agenda, because their support base comes from those that support “traditional” family values, sometimes referred to as the “religious right.” The split flows along party lines between the Conservatives vs. everyone else (with maybe the exception of the Bloc Quebecois – don’t know enough about their platforms). But it’s interesting to note that this split is represented in the Canadian population between the city and rural populations, as well as Western and Eastern Canada. Don’t believe me? Have a look at the colours on the map representing the party affiliations of our representatives in the House of Commons.
I don’t like the agenda the Conservatives are pushing, but that doesn’t mean I approve of the leadership the Liberals provided over the previous 12 or so years. They made plenty of mistakes too. But that doesn’t mean I think NDP leadership would fare any better, because I think Jack Layton is a media narcissist, interested more in getting his face on the six o'clock news than in good governance. Can we hope that the Liberal leadership convention will elect the best candidate…or the most popular? Someone that could lead the party not only to victory in the next election, but someone who will do what is right for the majority of Canadians? Time will tell.
To the Canadian electorate I say this: get involved with the election process, whether it’s running as a candidate, volunteering as a campaign worker, letting your representative know your thoughts and feelings during their mandate, or just spending a few minutes before you vote to see what each of the candidates/parties are promising and casting a critical eye, before you mark that X on your ballot. When you do vote, don’t just look at party affiliations, or how good the candidate looks, or any other specific thing. Look at the total package and make your choice. And certainly don’t vote based just on how it affects your pocketbook. Case in point, the GST tax cut was the worst financial promise made in the last election (from an economic standpoint), yet it put the Conservatives in power.
One person, one vote. Make your thoughts known to your MP throughout their mandate. If you don’t like how they’re representing you? Vote with your feet.
Wings Over The World
Their latest antic? Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, was floating some possible budget ideas in an obvious attempt at gaining media, and thus voter, reaction to his proposals. One item that stuck out and got some media play was the idea of income splitting. In short, if one spouse made significantly more than the other, then the higher income earner can assign some of their income to the lower wage earner in order to reduce the couple’s tax burden. The greatest benefit from this scheme coming from the lower income spouse not generating any income at all.
Of course, the media’s usual man-in-the-street reactions were required, because the issue dealt with money and politics. Usually, I’m not one to pay attention to these, except for maybe a little bit of levity, since occasionally I hear a comment coming out of someone’s mouth that is one step above the antics of monkeys at the zoo. However, some people did make some interesting comments for this story. And it wasn’t just about what they said, but also what they didn’t say.
Those that were married obviously liked the idea. But the single people made a good point. Income splitting “discriminates against single people.” Of course it does. But it’s just this kind of tax break that gets good political mileage, just like a GST cut does, even though a GST cut is worse than just giving everyone an income tax rate cut across the board, like the Liberals did just prior to the election.
What these man-on-the-street interviews didn’t highlight is the fact that an income splitting scheme not only discriminates against single people, more specifically, it discriminates against single parents, the people that need a tax break the most! In addition, because the greatest benefit of the scheme comes from the maximum disparity of the two incomes, it also encourages one of the spouses to stay at home and be with the kids!
What the media failed to do is put two and two together and realize that income splitting is just another perk for the traditional family values agenda being pushed by the Conservatives. If you’re good and are married (soon to be defined as between a man and a woman, if the Conservatives have their way), then they’ll reward you with some tax breaks. One of you stays at home with the kids, and they’ll reward you even more.
Shameless.
I fear that the majority of Canadians are not going to penetrate the Conservatives’ thinly-veiled attempts at society regression through political points achieved where it hits Canadians the most…their pocketbook. What I mean by society regression is that the Conservatives are attempting to reduce or relinquish the gains people in our society have achieved, through the courts, as well as through legislation. Societies change and from my other postings, you’ll see I’m a proponent of community standards. Obviously, there is a large segment of society that supports things like gay marriage, and single parenthood. But these things don’t fit in with the Conservative agenda, because their support base comes from those that support “traditional” family values, sometimes referred to as the “religious right.” The split flows along party lines between the Conservatives vs. everyone else (with maybe the exception of the Bloc Quebecois – don’t know enough about their platforms). But it’s interesting to note that this split is represented in the Canadian population between the city and rural populations, as well as Western and Eastern Canada. Don’t believe me? Have a look at the colours on the map representing the party affiliations of our representatives in the House of Commons.
I don’t like the agenda the Conservatives are pushing, but that doesn’t mean I approve of the leadership the Liberals provided over the previous 12 or so years. They made plenty of mistakes too. But that doesn’t mean I think NDP leadership would fare any better, because I think Jack Layton is a media narcissist, interested more in getting his face on the six o'clock news than in good governance. Can we hope that the Liberal leadership convention will elect the best candidate…or the most popular? Someone that could lead the party not only to victory in the next election, but someone who will do what is right for the majority of Canadians? Time will tell.
To the Canadian electorate I say this: get involved with the election process, whether it’s running as a candidate, volunteering as a campaign worker, letting your representative know your thoughts and feelings during their mandate, or just spending a few minutes before you vote to see what each of the candidates/parties are promising and casting a critical eye, before you mark that X on your ballot. When you do vote, don’t just look at party affiliations, or how good the candidate looks, or any other specific thing. Look at the total package and make your choice. And certainly don’t vote based just on how it affects your pocketbook. Case in point, the GST tax cut was the worst financial promise made in the last election (from an economic standpoint), yet it put the Conservatives in power.
One person, one vote. Make your thoughts known to your MP throughout their mandate. If you don’t like how they’re representing you? Vote with your feet.
Wings Over The World
November 21, 2006
The “N” Word
Michael Richards, a.k.a. “Kramer,” is in hot water for sure! If you haven’t already heard, then watch it on YouTube.
I think that this incident brings up a very interesting point. The common complaint is (usually from White people): Why is it alright for African-Americans (I will call them “Blacks” from this point on in the interest of including groups of people that may not be considered African-American, but are affected by this) to call each other the “N” word (I refuse to use it even in written form), but a White person, even if saying it to a friend in the same context as another Black person would say it, is labelled a racist?
With regard to Michael Richards’ performance, reading the subtitles of the incident and seeing his reactions in the video, I believe he was trying to push the comedic envelope, like many artists do, thinking his tirade could be part of his act that night, a little improv on his part. But it also looks like it got out of hand and he didn’t know when to stop, or where to go next, and that’s why he walked off stage. I also want to point out that the audience member also made a racial slur to Mr. Richards, but nothing is being said about that in the media.
Getting back to the “N” word, Wikipedia has a history of the term. That word did not start off being a racial slur, it was only a term used to describe Black people, and even used in English Literature texts. It was only when Blacks were being oppressed and that the oppression was widely recognized, did it come to be a racial slur, on par with some of the others mentioned in the Wikipedia entry.
I recall that the now cancelled TV series Boston Public, had an episode devoted to this subject. In this episode, two very good friends, students in the high school, one Black and one White, were being playful. The White student called the Black student the “N” word, in the same manner and context as one Black person would call another Black person. The Black friend took no offence, but another Black student in the class did. The teacher of the class, the Michael Rapaport character, being the cutting edge teacher, wanted to discuss the subject in an open forum in class. Of course, he had his ears pinned back by the school staff because, it was explained, he was White and had no right leading this kind of discussion since he could not empathize, not having had the “Black experience.” Even the Black principal (Chi McBride) was in turmoil, deciding whether this subject should be broached. In the end, the principal lead the discussion in class with the teacher looking on (from outside the class), in approval.
What does all of this teach us? Have we gotten to the point where the “N” word should be expunged from the English language? Should we even allow for Blacks to use it amongst themselves? Is this a case of re-appropriation of the word by the people suffering from it, much like the term “Dyke” has become amongst Lesbians? Since Lesbians have re-appropriated the term, is it okay for people outside the Gay and Lesbian community to call them that, or is it still seen as derogatory? And if it is still seen as derogatory for a heterosexual to call a Lesbian a Dyke, will it be acceptable some time in the future? Which brings us back to the “N” word. If the Black community accepts the use of the word, then will it ever be acceptable for people outside of the community to use the term in a non-derogatory manner?
There was a time when Blacks were referred to as “Coloured People.” That too has been demonized somewhat, in deference to the term African-American. But what of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)? Do they continue to use the term because of the organization’s history/tradition, or is it still acceptable to call a Black person a “Coloured Person”?
I could go on, but let me wrap this up and we can continue this discussion through the comments section.
We are a community, whether that means the entire World, or just one small block in a large city, or even a group of people that have a common thread. The acceptance or rejection of anything, a word, a deed, or anything else, is based on the community standard. If the “N" word is acceptable in some circles and not in others, then maybe a discussion needs to occur to decide whether the term gets expunged from the English language, or not. We should determine whether the word should be re-appropriated so that it is empowering, rather than derogatory. Why is it that it is common and accepted in hip-hop circles, but I just can’t imagine one Black lawyer saying it to another Black lawyer in the financial district?
Yes, Michael Richards went a bit too far during his comedy act. It was reported that he didn’t use the term during the performance that followed. He is making public apologies for using the “N” word, whether it is in fear of his career, or he is truly sorry. Only he knows for sure which applies. He received harsh criticism from every quarter, and it continues to be newsworthy a couple of days after it occurred. However, I think the audience member that made the racial slur towards Michael Richards should also apologize, because he certainly didn’t take the high ground during the incident.
Racism has no place in our society, regardless of your origin. It is emotionally harmful and oppressive. Do your bit in stamping it out.
Wings Over The World
I think that this incident brings up a very interesting point. The common complaint is (usually from White people): Why is it alright for African-Americans (I will call them “Blacks” from this point on in the interest of including groups of people that may not be considered African-American, but are affected by this) to call each other the “N” word (I refuse to use it even in written form), but a White person, even if saying it to a friend in the same context as another Black person would say it, is labelled a racist?
With regard to Michael Richards’ performance, reading the subtitles of the incident and seeing his reactions in the video, I believe he was trying to push the comedic envelope, like many artists do, thinking his tirade could be part of his act that night, a little improv on his part. But it also looks like it got out of hand and he didn’t know when to stop, or where to go next, and that’s why he walked off stage. I also want to point out that the audience member also made a racial slur to Mr. Richards, but nothing is being said about that in the media.
Getting back to the “N” word, Wikipedia has a history of the term. That word did not start off being a racial slur, it was only a term used to describe Black people, and even used in English Literature texts. It was only when Blacks were being oppressed and that the oppression was widely recognized, did it come to be a racial slur, on par with some of the others mentioned in the Wikipedia entry.
I recall that the now cancelled TV series Boston Public, had an episode devoted to this subject. In this episode, two very good friends, students in the high school, one Black and one White, were being playful. The White student called the Black student the “N” word, in the same manner and context as one Black person would call another Black person. The Black friend took no offence, but another Black student in the class did. The teacher of the class, the Michael Rapaport character, being the cutting edge teacher, wanted to discuss the subject in an open forum in class. Of course, he had his ears pinned back by the school staff because, it was explained, he was White and had no right leading this kind of discussion since he could not empathize, not having had the “Black experience.” Even the Black principal (Chi McBride) was in turmoil, deciding whether this subject should be broached. In the end, the principal lead the discussion in class with the teacher looking on (from outside the class), in approval.
What does all of this teach us? Have we gotten to the point where the “N” word should be expunged from the English language? Should we even allow for Blacks to use it amongst themselves? Is this a case of re-appropriation of the word by the people suffering from it, much like the term “Dyke” has become amongst Lesbians? Since Lesbians have re-appropriated the term, is it okay for people outside the Gay and Lesbian community to call them that, or is it still seen as derogatory? And if it is still seen as derogatory for a heterosexual to call a Lesbian a Dyke, will it be acceptable some time in the future? Which brings us back to the “N” word. If the Black community accepts the use of the word, then will it ever be acceptable for people outside of the community to use the term in a non-derogatory manner?
There was a time when Blacks were referred to as “Coloured People.” That too has been demonized somewhat, in deference to the term African-American. But what of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)? Do they continue to use the term because of the organization’s history/tradition, or is it still acceptable to call a Black person a “Coloured Person”?
I could go on, but let me wrap this up and we can continue this discussion through the comments section.
We are a community, whether that means the entire World, or just one small block in a large city, or even a group of people that have a common thread. The acceptance or rejection of anything, a word, a deed, or anything else, is based on the community standard. If the “N" word is acceptable in some circles and not in others, then maybe a discussion needs to occur to decide whether the term gets expunged from the English language, or not. We should determine whether the word should be re-appropriated so that it is empowering, rather than derogatory. Why is it that it is common and accepted in hip-hop circles, but I just can’t imagine one Black lawyer saying it to another Black lawyer in the financial district?
Yes, Michael Richards went a bit too far during his comedy act. It was reported that he didn’t use the term during the performance that followed. He is making public apologies for using the “N” word, whether it is in fear of his career, or he is truly sorry. Only he knows for sure which applies. He received harsh criticism from every quarter, and it continues to be newsworthy a couple of days after it occurred. However, I think the audience member that made the racial slur towards Michael Richards should also apologize, because he certainly didn’t take the high ground during the incident.
Racism has no place in our society, regardless of your origin. It is emotionally harmful and oppressive. Do your bit in stamping it out.
Wings Over The World
November 10, 2006
Democratic Anarchy
Voter intimidation. Closed polls. Long line-ups. Long waits. Confusion. Ballot box stuffing. Voter fraud.
Scenes from a ‘Banana Republic’ in Latin America? Some sub-Saharan African nation trying its democratic legs after a generation of dictatorship rule? Nope. This was what was reported during the electoral process in the good ol’ U. S. of A. last Tuesday! What is happening in this self-proclaimed greatest democracy on the face of the planet?
Add to this the attack ads promulgated throughout the campaign using half truths, and you’ve got one outrageous democratic process! You would think that this would only happen in one of those countries, not in the well-developed democracies of the West. Sad, but true.
What drives people to resort to such tactics in order to win? Are they that desperate to retain power, or gain it? Are there mob and/or big business connections? Are campaign workers looking for a cushy bureaucratic appointment after their candidate is voted in? Are candidate policies so hollow, their messages so vague, their party affiliation an albatross around their neck that they think dirty tricks would be the only way to win? Do they think that voters would be susceptible to such tactics? In this age of the Internet, did they not think that information would not only flow to the voters, but that voters would be able to easily pass along information to other voters? Did they not think that someone with a critical eye could take a few minutes to upload a video to Youtube.com and show the world (or at least several million Americans) just what kind of candidates they really are? Did they actually think that their message would influence the computer keys of someone with an Internet connection and a Blogger.com account? Maybe the voters are smarter than the politicians think.
If you think that this is par for the course in the American frontier, apparently Canada is not immune either. Voters will be going to the polls on Monday to vote for their municipal leaders. What of those crazy, but polite, Canucks? Crazy, yes. But some are not so polite. Similar accusations of dirty tricks are cropping up. It will be interesting to see if it is translated into votes on election day.
Ancient Greece was the cradle of Western civilization. From there, our notion of democracy had its genesis. Unfortunately, political corruption and backstabbing, literally rather figuratively, also had its start. Have we really progressed? We should have. In this age of political correctness, equality, and technical achievements occurring in an exponential fashion, you would think candidates and/or their campaign workers would be above such unethical behaviour.
The Oxford dictionary defines democracy as, “Government by all the people, direct or representative; form of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority views.” Wikkipedia has quite the backgrounder on democracy. If the people that employ dirty tricks are voted into office, then it is a sad state of affairs that these people represent us, or even represent what we stand for, in front of the citizens of other countries.
Who are we to export, or even preach, democracy, when we are so fallible when employing it? Charity begins at home.
If we are to achieve true democracy, then we have to show these sham candidates that we will not tolerate their antics. This is your government. How do ensure they truly represent you to the world, in an ethical form? Write to them, or tell them in person…file a complaint with a police authority…or just vote for the guy that didn’t sully him/herself with such tactics, regardless of their political affiliation. That would teach future candidates that voters will not be intimidated, nor have the wool pull over their eyes. Hey, the only reason they do it in the first place is because someone can show that it was successful in the past. Then we might, just might, see some good, wholesome democracy in action. Maybe the movie V for Vendetta taught us more than we thought.
Just remember, voters get the government they deserve. And if you don't vote, you can't complain.
Wings Over The World
Scenes from a ‘Banana Republic’ in Latin America? Some sub-Saharan African nation trying its democratic legs after a generation of dictatorship rule? Nope. This was what was reported during the electoral process in the good ol’ U. S. of A. last Tuesday! What is happening in this self-proclaimed greatest democracy on the face of the planet?
Add to this the attack ads promulgated throughout the campaign using half truths, and you’ve got one outrageous democratic process! You would think that this would only happen in one of those countries, not in the well-developed democracies of the West. Sad, but true.
What drives people to resort to such tactics in order to win? Are they that desperate to retain power, or gain it? Are there mob and/or big business connections? Are campaign workers looking for a cushy bureaucratic appointment after their candidate is voted in? Are candidate policies so hollow, their messages so vague, their party affiliation an albatross around their neck that they think dirty tricks would be the only way to win? Do they think that voters would be susceptible to such tactics? In this age of the Internet, did they not think that information would not only flow to the voters, but that voters would be able to easily pass along information to other voters? Did they not think that someone with a critical eye could take a few minutes to upload a video to Youtube.com and show the world (or at least several million Americans) just what kind of candidates they really are? Did they actually think that their message would influence the computer keys of someone with an Internet connection and a Blogger.com account? Maybe the voters are smarter than the politicians think.
If you think that this is par for the course in the American frontier, apparently Canada is not immune either. Voters will be going to the polls on Monday to vote for their municipal leaders. What of those crazy, but polite, Canucks? Crazy, yes. But some are not so polite. Similar accusations of dirty tricks are cropping up. It will be interesting to see if it is translated into votes on election day.
Ancient Greece was the cradle of Western civilization. From there, our notion of democracy had its genesis. Unfortunately, political corruption and backstabbing, literally rather figuratively, also had its start. Have we really progressed? We should have. In this age of political correctness, equality, and technical achievements occurring in an exponential fashion, you would think candidates and/or their campaign workers would be above such unethical behaviour.
The Oxford dictionary defines democracy as, “Government by all the people, direct or representative; form of society ignoring hereditary class distinctions and tolerating minority views.” Wikkipedia has quite the backgrounder on democracy. If the people that employ dirty tricks are voted into office, then it is a sad state of affairs that these people represent us, or even represent what we stand for, in front of the citizens of other countries.
Who are we to export, or even preach, democracy, when we are so fallible when employing it? Charity begins at home.
If we are to achieve true democracy, then we have to show these sham candidates that we will not tolerate their antics. This is your government. How do ensure they truly represent you to the world, in an ethical form? Write to them, or tell them in person…file a complaint with a police authority…or just vote for the guy that didn’t sully him/herself with such tactics, regardless of their political affiliation. That would teach future candidates that voters will not be intimidated, nor have the wool pull over their eyes. Hey, the only reason they do it in the first place is because someone can show that it was successful in the past. Then we might, just might, see some good, wholesome democracy in action. Maybe the movie V for Vendetta taught us more than we thought.
Just remember, voters get the government they deserve. And if you don't vote, you can't complain.
Wings Over The World
October 13, 2006
Attack of the iPod People
You've seen them, white wires growing out of their ears, oblivious to all around them. These "Pod" people. When you ask them a question they respond with a "huh?" and pull out one of the wires from their ears. That's right, I'm talking about iPod users.
They're everywhere. They can be your friend, your neighbour, your sister. It seems like they can't go more than a few seconds without being plugged in. In fact, I saw a guy playing in a Beach Volleyball tournament with those telling white wires sticking out of his ears.
What are the tell-tale signs of an iPod user? Consider the following:
They're everywhere. They can be your friend, your neighbour, your sister. It seems like they can't go more than a few seconds without being plugged in. In fact, I saw a guy playing in a Beach Volleyball tournament with those telling white wires sticking out of his ears.
What are the tell-tale signs of an iPod user? Consider the following:
- White wires protruding from their ears, leading to their arm, or pocket, or some form of carrier.
- Vacant looks, i.e. very little awareness of what's going on around them.
- Head bopping, in time with the music they're listening to.
- Audible singing, or the mouthing of the words of the song they are listening to.
- The wearing of a baseball cap, canted to one side (the "down and locked" position, as I like to say).
- Baggy, hip hop style, clothes.
- Hoods covering their heads and/or staring at the ground for fear of eye contact with anyone.
However, the one true sign you've seen an iPod Person is those darn white wires coming out of their heads.
Although I don't begrudge someone for listening to music that they like, whenever it's convenient, I just think it's gone a little too far. When people are listening to their iPods and become oblivious to their surroundings because they have the volume turned up (a majority do, according to statistics, even when informed of the possibility of hearing loss), then it becomes a hazard to the general population when these iPod People jaywalk, ride bicycles and drive cars. Not only could they seriously injure themselves, they could hurt other people too. Here's a grim thought: will we see statistics showing the number of deaths directly attributable to iPods?
Are iPods going to become the new cigarette? You'll only be able to use them in certain designated areas? Apple will get sued because of deaths caused by the use of iPods? Is Apple the tobacco company of the new millennium. Well, if someone can successfully sue McDonald's for millions of dollars because they spilled the hot coffee they ordered at the drive thru in their own lap, then I don't think Apple getting sued because of the hazards associated with using an iPod is farfetched. I think I'll have a good chuckle when that happens. But until then, I have one thing to say to current and future iPod People...
Be careful out there!
Wings Over The World
October 12, 2006
9/11 Schools
Why are there a rash of school shootings of late? It's the beginning of the school year. Surely Mr. Smith's math homework is not that overwhelming. Wait...most are being perpetrated by non-students. Why is that? Why are people (all seem to be male, strangely enough) going into our schools and just killing students. Kids with hopes, and dreams, and a future...snuffed out before they can be unleashed into the world. Could those that were killed have been our future Einsteins, or Ghandis, or Oliviers? We'll never know.
In the aftermath, our schools are becoming fortresses. Not of learning, but of fear.
Fear and suspicion are breeding in our schools, just like they have in our airports and airplanes. Metal detectors, video surveillance, armed security, physical searches, intrusive questions. These are not just the norm in our airports, they've become de rigeur in our schools too. Why is that? Why have we come to this?
The obvious reason is to protect our children. But what was the catalyst for people going on shooting rampages in our schools? Have the fears of 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan driven people over the edge? And why schools? Because they are the most vulnerable? The students are the most innocent and defenseless? The reason the shooter went into the Amish school was because he knew there would be little resistance for him to get inside. The reason he gave in his final note for committing this act was that it was because he had molested children before and he was getting the same thoughts 20 years later. More often than not, it seems a shooter's motivations centre around revenge. Why do they think they can resolve their issues by killing people (mainly students)?
We once felt reasonably safe in airplanes (except for the anxiety of crashing), before they became weapons on September 9, 2001. Is the same thing happening in our schools? Are we breeding a new generation of neurotic people who will go on to commit similar crimes? Look at the people who were molested in childhood, only to go on and commit these heinous acts themselves (Mr. Foley being the latest high profile perpetrator).
Is making our schools an armed camp they way to go? Children need and deserve our protection as they try to learn in what was once a safe environment. Do they not enjoy the same feeling of security as when we went to school? Violent acts have always been around. During my school years, a student was stabbed during school hours, when I was in Grade 8. Also, a student was shot at the high school I went to a couple of years after I graduated. These were city schools, but they weren't economically depressed neighbourhoods. These areas were populated by hard working, middle-class families. That seemed a lifetime ago. Violence in schools has always been around, but what is the difference now. The post 9/11 environment?
Has the nightly news showing religious fanaticism, war zones and military might influencing our children? Is showing the video feed from a "bomb cam" sending a message to our children that it's okay to solve your problems with the use of weapons? Is this constant exposure to violence in the news, in TV shows, and in video games finally taking its toll on our childrens' psyche?
Maybe this issue needs to go beyond being a philosophical question and moved into our labs and think tanks. Violence in our schools is not a recent phenomenon, but it certainly seems to have escalated. Ask why. Dissect the minds of those that perpetrate these crimes. Dig deep. Explore every avenue, however innocuous.
We must find a solution. Our children...our future depends on it.
Wings Over The World
In the aftermath, our schools are becoming fortresses. Not of learning, but of fear.
Fear and suspicion are breeding in our schools, just like they have in our airports and airplanes. Metal detectors, video surveillance, armed security, physical searches, intrusive questions. These are not just the norm in our airports, they've become de rigeur in our schools too. Why is that? Why have we come to this?
The obvious reason is to protect our children. But what was the catalyst for people going on shooting rampages in our schools? Have the fears of 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan driven people over the edge? And why schools? Because they are the most vulnerable? The students are the most innocent and defenseless? The reason the shooter went into the Amish school was because he knew there would be little resistance for him to get inside. The reason he gave in his final note for committing this act was that it was because he had molested children before and he was getting the same thoughts 20 years later. More often than not, it seems a shooter's motivations centre around revenge. Why do they think they can resolve their issues by killing people (mainly students)?
We once felt reasonably safe in airplanes (except for the anxiety of crashing), before they became weapons on September 9, 2001. Is the same thing happening in our schools? Are we breeding a new generation of neurotic people who will go on to commit similar crimes? Look at the people who were molested in childhood, only to go on and commit these heinous acts themselves (Mr. Foley being the latest high profile perpetrator).
Is making our schools an armed camp they way to go? Children need and deserve our protection as they try to learn in what was once a safe environment. Do they not enjoy the same feeling of security as when we went to school? Violent acts have always been around. During my school years, a student was stabbed during school hours, when I was in Grade 8. Also, a student was shot at the high school I went to a couple of years after I graduated. These were city schools, but they weren't economically depressed neighbourhoods. These areas were populated by hard working, middle-class families. That seemed a lifetime ago. Violence in schools has always been around, but what is the difference now. The post 9/11 environment?
Has the nightly news showing religious fanaticism, war zones and military might influencing our children? Is showing the video feed from a "bomb cam" sending a message to our children that it's okay to solve your problems with the use of weapons? Is this constant exposure to violence in the news, in TV shows, and in video games finally taking its toll on our childrens' psyche?
Maybe this issue needs to go beyond being a philosophical question and moved into our labs and think tanks. Violence in our schools is not a recent phenomenon, but it certainly seems to have escalated. Ask why. Dissect the minds of those that perpetrate these crimes. Dig deep. Explore every avenue, however innocuous.
We must find a solution. Our children...our future depends on it.
Wings Over The World
October 01, 2006
Belinda the Neophyte
What is Belinda Stronach thinking? Does she think that she can join public life when she became an MP and not have her personal life scrutinized?
You've probably heard by now that Belinda has been named as the "other woman" by the wife of tough guy NHLer Tie Domi, in her divorce papers submission. In an interview, Belinda said that she did not want to comment, because the impending divorce was a matter for the courts. I can accept that. Why muck up an already messy situation? But she went on to state that her private life was not for public consumption! Pardon?!?!? Tell us Belinda, since when has any public figure, especially a political figure, not have their dirty laundry hung out for the world to see? And you haven't exactly flown under the radar. Your very public break up with Peter McKay, coming to mind. And to top it off, you say that this wouldn't have been an issue if you were a male politician. Give yourself a shake!
Public figures, be they politicians, actors, or just plain filthy rich, male OR female, are subject to public scrutiny. Because for some reason, many people feel the need to read about their favourite celebrities. Just look at the sales figures for supermarket tabloids, and celebrity magazines. Why is that? Are we truly interested in their lives. Do they represent a world we'd like to live in, or do our own humdrum lives need spicing up, as we live vicariously through the latest spat between Angelina and Jennifer?
Regardless of the answer, the fact remains that Belinda's relationship with Tie has been outed and people want to know. Since people want to know, journalists are going to ask. Denying them information will just cause them to dig deeper. Belinda, take a cue from your ex, Peter. Recently, on a visit to Halifax by Condoleeza Rice, there were some suggestions that there was chemistry between she and Peter. Did Peter issue statements? Did he deny any relationship? No. He kept his mouth shut and a one or two day story remained that, instead of carrying on for several days, and in many different media sources.
Hey, wait a second, dear reader. Let's just step back a second. Maybe Belinda has an agenda here? Maybe she knows this is a one or two day story and she wants to extend it by employing these tactics? After all, as it's been said before, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Maybe she's just trying to get more press to fuel her political ambition? She's not heading for a Liberal leadership candidacy this round, maybe she'll try next time? Maybe she'll use this incident to gain notoriety? The next Liberal leadership run probably won't happen for a few years. By that time, people will have forgotten about this. What do you think? Could someone who failed to take more than one year of university, and was president of Magna because daddy owned it, have enough wherewithal to accomplish such a campaign?
I leave you to be the judge.
Wings Over The World
You've probably heard by now that Belinda has been named as the "other woman" by the wife of tough guy NHLer Tie Domi, in her divorce papers submission. In an interview, Belinda said that she did not want to comment, because the impending divorce was a matter for the courts. I can accept that. Why muck up an already messy situation? But she went on to state that her private life was not for public consumption! Pardon?!?!? Tell us Belinda, since when has any public figure, especially a political figure, not have their dirty laundry hung out for the world to see? And you haven't exactly flown under the radar. Your very public break up with Peter McKay, coming to mind. And to top it off, you say that this wouldn't have been an issue if you were a male politician. Give yourself a shake!
Public figures, be they politicians, actors, or just plain filthy rich, male OR female, are subject to public scrutiny. Because for some reason, many people feel the need to read about their favourite celebrities. Just look at the sales figures for supermarket tabloids, and celebrity magazines. Why is that? Are we truly interested in their lives. Do they represent a world we'd like to live in, or do our own humdrum lives need spicing up, as we live vicariously through the latest spat between Angelina and Jennifer?
Regardless of the answer, the fact remains that Belinda's relationship with Tie has been outed and people want to know. Since people want to know, journalists are going to ask. Denying them information will just cause them to dig deeper. Belinda, take a cue from your ex, Peter. Recently, on a visit to Halifax by Condoleeza Rice, there were some suggestions that there was chemistry between she and Peter. Did Peter issue statements? Did he deny any relationship? No. He kept his mouth shut and a one or two day story remained that, instead of carrying on for several days, and in many different media sources.
Hey, wait a second, dear reader. Let's just step back a second. Maybe Belinda has an agenda here? Maybe she knows this is a one or two day story and she wants to extend it by employing these tactics? After all, as it's been said before, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Maybe she's just trying to get more press to fuel her political ambition? She's not heading for a Liberal leadership candidacy this round, maybe she'll try next time? Maybe she'll use this incident to gain notoriety? The next Liberal leadership run probably won't happen for a few years. By that time, people will have forgotten about this. What do you think? Could someone who failed to take more than one year of university, and was president of Magna because daddy owned it, have enough wherewithal to accomplish such a campaign?
I leave you to be the judge.
Wings Over The World
September 24, 2006
DON'T Hang 'em High
Okay, I get it. Mr. Arar was wronged. He was falsely accused and wrongfully sent to Syria for 'questioning' (read tortured). An investigation was conducted, and this was found to be factual. However, should we be seeking to serve RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli's head on a platter? Although I haven't seen anybody specifically asking for that -- yet-- the media certainly seems to be hounding him as if he should resign.
I recall the opposite happening, not too long ago, with the Kadrs. The Kadr patriarch was held for questioning, then released, only to be found fighting against those fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Some of the same questions were raised when this came to light....How soon we forget.
Those that protect us have a difficult job. They must do whatever they can to prevent these attacks from happening, ever mindful of our civil liberties. Those that would do us harm take advantage of the liberties we enjoy to slip under the radar, in order to accomplish their nefarious deeds. A difficult balancing act...Mistakes will be made...In the Kadr case, the authorities were overly cautious. In the Arar case, they were not cautious enough. I would not want to be put into the position Mr. Arar was in, but does that mean we should start firing people??? Let's not get hot-headed here.
Mr. Arar and his family deserve to have their names cleared. They deserve their apology. They deserve compensation, just as anyone else who had been falsely accused and/or imprisoned does.
The RCMP? Don't just go looking for a rope and a high tree branch. Give the RCMP Commissioner and his staff the opportunity to determine what went wrong and how they can fix it so these types of things don't happen in the future. Political leadership will also be required from Mr. Zaccardelli's boss, Stockwell Day, Public Safety Minister, and his boss, Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The "war on terror" will require a 'living' game plan, i.e. something that changes and adapts to the threats and tactics used to strike fear into the population. A game plan that needs a good coach and a good General Manager. People who learn from their mistakes. If they can't learn, that's when replacements should be sought out.
Now is not the time to crucify those that work to protect us, just because it's politically expedient.
Wings Over The World
I recall the opposite happening, not too long ago, with the Kadrs. The Kadr patriarch was held for questioning, then released, only to be found fighting against those fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Some of the same questions were raised when this came to light....How soon we forget.
Those that protect us have a difficult job. They must do whatever they can to prevent these attacks from happening, ever mindful of our civil liberties. Those that would do us harm take advantage of the liberties we enjoy to slip under the radar, in order to accomplish their nefarious deeds. A difficult balancing act...Mistakes will be made...In the Kadr case, the authorities were overly cautious. In the Arar case, they were not cautious enough. I would not want to be put into the position Mr. Arar was in, but does that mean we should start firing people??? Let's not get hot-headed here.
Mr. Arar and his family deserve to have their names cleared. They deserve their apology. They deserve compensation, just as anyone else who had been falsely accused and/or imprisoned does.
The RCMP? Don't just go looking for a rope and a high tree branch. Give the RCMP Commissioner and his staff the opportunity to determine what went wrong and how they can fix it so these types of things don't happen in the future. Political leadership will also be required from Mr. Zaccardelli's boss, Stockwell Day, Public Safety Minister, and his boss, Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The "war on terror" will require a 'living' game plan, i.e. something that changes and adapts to the threats and tactics used to strike fear into the population. A game plan that needs a good coach and a good General Manager. People who learn from their mistakes. If they can't learn, that's when replacements should be sought out.
Now is not the time to crucify those that work to protect us, just because it's politically expedient.
Wings Over The World
September 15, 2006
Is Canada's Gun Law Killing Us?
Prime Minister Harper is at it again.
After the tragic event at Dawson College where a lone shooter killed and injured 20 people, then turned the gun on himself, Mr. Harper states that the gun laws are ineffective. Of course, the victims' families and others are calling for stricter gun laws, but it was found that Kimveer Gill held a semi-automatic rifle, a shotgun and a handgun legally. It was revealed that he was a member of a gun club, he received two gun permits under the reportedly stricter 1995 Firearms Act, which included TWO background checks, and there were checks and balances supposedly set in place to identify and report people that could potentially become unstable. Yet, with all these precautions, someone was still able to commit this heinous act.
Before I get to my point, I want to make clear that I'm okay with people owning guns through legitimate means. I question some of the weapons that are available to gun collectors, but I don't begrudge their ability to own weapons. However, this privilege, not right, privilege comes with great responsibility. They must be properly stored and secured, and I believe all weapons should be registered. Which brings me to my point.
Again, Mr. Harper says the current gun laws are ineffective. What he failed to mention over the past couple of days is his long held policy intent to remove so-called "long guns," or rifles, from the registry. No doubt, a request from his Western Canada support base. How are you going to spin this one Mr. Harper? Obviously, this policy initiative isn't going to be pushed through by the Conservatives during their current mandate. They're going to have to wait and see if they get a majority government after the next election in order to be able to push this one through.
My message to Mr. Harper and his Conservative caucus:
If the current gun laws are ineffective, fix them.
If the current gun registry is broken, fix it.
If the types of weapons available to legitimate gun collectors are a danger to the public, reduce the list.
Now, nor anytime in the future, is it appropriate to relax the registering of weapons. If you think there is an appropriate time to do so, Mr. Prime Minister, just ask the families of the shootings at Dawson College, Ecole Polytechnique, Concordia University, Verdun, Winnipeg, and all the people killed in Toronto during the last year and a half, including Jane Creba.
Wings Over The World
After the tragic event at Dawson College where a lone shooter killed and injured 20 people, then turned the gun on himself, Mr. Harper states that the gun laws are ineffective. Of course, the victims' families and others are calling for stricter gun laws, but it was found that Kimveer Gill held a semi-automatic rifle, a shotgun and a handgun legally. It was revealed that he was a member of a gun club, he received two gun permits under the reportedly stricter 1995 Firearms Act, which included TWO background checks, and there were checks and balances supposedly set in place to identify and report people that could potentially become unstable. Yet, with all these precautions, someone was still able to commit this heinous act.
Before I get to my point, I want to make clear that I'm okay with people owning guns through legitimate means. I question some of the weapons that are available to gun collectors, but I don't begrudge their ability to own weapons. However, this privilege, not right, privilege comes with great responsibility. They must be properly stored and secured, and I believe all weapons should be registered. Which brings me to my point.
Again, Mr. Harper says the current gun laws are ineffective. What he failed to mention over the past couple of days is his long held policy intent to remove so-called "long guns," or rifles, from the registry. No doubt, a request from his Western Canada support base. How are you going to spin this one Mr. Harper? Obviously, this policy initiative isn't going to be pushed through by the Conservatives during their current mandate. They're going to have to wait and see if they get a majority government after the next election in order to be able to push this one through.
My message to Mr. Harper and his Conservative caucus:
If the current gun laws are ineffective, fix them.
If the current gun registry is broken, fix it.
If the types of weapons available to legitimate gun collectors are a danger to the public, reduce the list.
Now, nor anytime in the future, is it appropriate to relax the registering of weapons. If you think there is an appropriate time to do so, Mr. Prime Minister, just ask the families of the shootings at Dawson College, Ecole Polytechnique, Concordia University, Verdun, Winnipeg, and all the people killed in Toronto during the last year and a half, including Jane Creba.
Wings Over The World
July 25, 2006
Harper Talking Out of Both Sides Of His Mouth
Unlike ex-Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Prime Minister Harper is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Not that I'm a Jean Chretien fan. Okay, cheap shot at Mr. Chretien. Sorry about that.
I wanted to post this earlier, but wasn't able to get around to it. I figured now was as good a time as any, considering it's the same old news of death and destruction coming out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.
If you just put your thinking caps on, you'll remember that before and during the election, Mr. Harper talked about an elected senate. However, in a recent interview, Stephen (I won't say Steve because then I'd get an admonishing e-mail from his mother) said that he wasn't ready to do that during his current mandate, even though he would like to. The reason he gave was that he didn't want to cause additional cost to taxpayers, because elected officials can write off election expenses.
Some of the points Mr. Harper made are:
He would never appoint a senator (yet he appointed Michael Fortier right after the election, presumably to reward him for his campaign work for the Conservatives. Does your mother know you fib, Stephen?);
He wants to limit a Senator's term to eight years, vice a lifetime appointment to age 75, currently;
He wants to have fixed election dates to be held every 4 years, except for a non-confidence motion. But the PM can still go to the Governor General to request a dissolution of parliament prior to the 4 year limit, then have a an election on the fixed date in October.
Okay, okay. There are some benefits:
1. We have fixed election dates, which makes it convenient for politicians and electors;
2. There is a cost savings because governments may otherwise be tempted to call early snap elections to take advantage of high polling numbers;
3. Senators become accountable to the electorate.
BUT, I'm thinking there are some serious disadvantages too:
1. If the government requests dissolution of Government in February, and there's no election until October, we are talking about eight months of no parliamentary debate. That means that political debate has to be conducted through the media. How democratic is that? Not a very effective means of governing.
2. If Senators are elected, then you could get the same party having a majority in both houses. The Senate is supposed to be the house of sober second thought. If you have the same party in both houses holding majorities, a lot of stuff will just slide through. Yes, you have partisanship in the Senate now, but I think Senate appointments are better than going through Senate elections. Electing MPs should be all that Canadian citizens should be asked to handle. We shouldn't get into political popularity contests in the Senate. On top of which, not having Senate elections will save the country coffers from Senate election expenses.
3. If politicians know exactly when the election is, they'll spend a lot of time leading up to it for electioneering. Look at the United States. It's generally accepted that campaigning for the Presidency starts about two years, before the actual election!
No, Stephen, you're wrong on this one (not the first time either). Sure, the Canadian parliamentary system has room for improvement. Everything does. But your suggestions are way out in left field. Is this real reform? On top of which, you don't do as you say (re: the Fortier Senate appointment). How about imposing minimum attendance for Senators during sittings? Or, allowing a "None of the above" selection on ballots, so people can make a protest vote without the fear of electing say, an NDP government (like what happened during the Ontario experiment in the early 90's).
Do you want real reform, Mr. Prime Minister? Step aside and let someone else run the country, because it appears as if you're what we call in the business world, an autocratic manager. How about giving Peter MacKay a shot? He looks like he could handle it. A friendly Maritimer, boy next door, kind of guy. Sure Belinda broke his heart, but he seems to have bounced back.
Wings Over The World
I wanted to post this earlier, but wasn't able to get around to it. I figured now was as good a time as any, considering it's the same old news of death and destruction coming out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.
If you just put your thinking caps on, you'll remember that before and during the election, Mr. Harper talked about an elected senate. However, in a recent interview, Stephen (I won't say Steve because then I'd get an admonishing e-mail from his mother) said that he wasn't ready to do that during his current mandate, even though he would like to. The reason he gave was that he didn't want to cause additional cost to taxpayers, because elected officials can write off election expenses.
Some of the points Mr. Harper made are:
He would never appoint a senator (yet he appointed Michael Fortier right after the election, presumably to reward him for his campaign work for the Conservatives. Does your mother know you fib, Stephen?);
He wants to limit a Senator's term to eight years, vice a lifetime appointment to age 75, currently;
He wants to have fixed election dates to be held every 4 years, except for a non-confidence motion. But the PM can still go to the Governor General to request a dissolution of parliament prior to the 4 year limit, then have a an election on the fixed date in October.
Okay, okay. There are some benefits:
1. We have fixed election dates, which makes it convenient for politicians and electors;
2. There is a cost savings because governments may otherwise be tempted to call early snap elections to take advantage of high polling numbers;
3. Senators become accountable to the electorate.
BUT, I'm thinking there are some serious disadvantages too:
1. If the government requests dissolution of Government in February, and there's no election until October, we are talking about eight months of no parliamentary debate. That means that political debate has to be conducted through the media. How democratic is that? Not a very effective means of governing.
2. If Senators are elected, then you could get the same party having a majority in both houses. The Senate is supposed to be the house of sober second thought. If you have the same party in both houses holding majorities, a lot of stuff will just slide through. Yes, you have partisanship in the Senate now, but I think Senate appointments are better than going through Senate elections. Electing MPs should be all that Canadian citizens should be asked to handle. We shouldn't get into political popularity contests in the Senate. On top of which, not having Senate elections will save the country coffers from Senate election expenses.
3. If politicians know exactly when the election is, they'll spend a lot of time leading up to it for electioneering. Look at the United States. It's generally accepted that campaigning for the Presidency starts about two years, before the actual election!
No, Stephen, you're wrong on this one (not the first time either). Sure, the Canadian parliamentary system has room for improvement. Everything does. But your suggestions are way out in left field. Is this real reform? On top of which, you don't do as you say (re: the Fortier Senate appointment). How about imposing minimum attendance for Senators during sittings? Or, allowing a "None of the above" selection on ballots, so people can make a protest vote without the fear of electing say, an NDP government (like what happened during the Ontario experiment in the early 90's).
Do you want real reform, Mr. Prime Minister? Step aside and let someone else run the country, because it appears as if you're what we call in the business world, an autocratic manager. How about giving Peter MacKay a shot? He looks like he could handle it. A friendly Maritimer, boy next door, kind of guy. Sure Belinda broke his heart, but he seems to have bounced back.
Wings Over The World
July 22, 2006
Materazzi who?
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
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 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
April 11, 2006
Tall Person Discrimination
Yes, I'm considered tall. And you know what bugs me most? When people say, "Oh, you're so tall!" If I said to a short person, "you're so short," that would be insensitive. So why is it okay for you to comment that I'm so tall, like it's the best thing to be? I've got news for you...it's not all that it's cracked up to be.
Oh sure, there are advantages to being tall. You can see over the cubicles in the office "cube farm." You get a better view in a crowd without having to stand on your toes. I even recall a study that was completed that showed that taller people were usually paid better and were promoted more often than their shorter counterparts (although not studying the report in detail, there could be other factors that influenced this). But did you ever consider how often tall people hit their heads? Or how about squeezing into a small car? I would certainly like to have the option of owning a small car, but alas, it is the domain of the "height challenged" elite. Sometimes larger cars and smaller SUV's are not even an option, because of the seat height.
I bring this up because of an observation I made during a recent business trip. Of course, I have difficulty travelling on airplanes. The seat pitch and backrest heights are not exactly conducive to a comfortable ride for a tall person. So of course, whenever I can, I request bulkhead or exit row seating. Much to my chagrin, this is usually impossible. Why? Because these coveted seats usually go to children and the elderly.
Now, I don't really have a problem with elderly passengers getting the bulkhead seats, if they require assistance, or have medical conditions that being in these seats, makes their trip more comfortable. However, I do not agree that children should get these seats. Two years ago, I was on an overseas flight. I specifically asked for bulkhead seating, but none was available. When I boarded and looked at the nearest bulkhead seats what did I find? All three of the middle seats were occupied by pre-teen children. Does this make sense when I, or any tall person, has to squeeze into a seat for an overnight flight?
Most importantly, I don't think that the elderly or children should get exit row seating, especially when it comes to overwing exits. Aircraft certifying authorities expect the passengers at overwing exits to be briefed on how to open the exits. If an emergency occurred, they would have to open the 40 lb door, pull it into the cabin, maneuver it around, and throw it out the opening. Do you think a pre-teen or elderly passenger could do this? What about the added complication of an elderly passenger in this location (who may have a medical condition) having to not only open the door, but get through it in a reasonable time so other passengers could do the same? This is a safety issue, and airlines should take note.
Maybe tall people should band together. Complain when you see children and the elderly in these seats. Just because we're tall, doesn't mean we always have things handed to us on a plate. It doesn't mean that we should have to suffer because we are well beyond the "average" height. There is handicapped seating on buses, handicapped parking, even maternity parking. Why can't there be tall person reserved seating on airplanes? Is this such a terrible thing to accommodate? I don't mind giving my height when ordering an airline ticket, if it puts me on a list to get a seat with extra legroom. In fact, if there are only 12 of these seats on an entire aircraft, the airlines should start with the tallest person on the flight and work their way down. Each person is allowed one travelling companion when the flight is longer than 3 hours. The caveat is that if you have a travelling companion that doesn't make the grade, then you have the option to decline the seat and go back into cattle class, and the next person on the list gets the seat. This sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
We can even have those neat little signs with a tall person graphic pasted to the rows of the coveted seats. Or if we really want to stick it to people, we can show a short person, and elderly person and a child in a circle with a line through it. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Yes, the sky IS blue in my world, and yes, I believe in a free and just society. Maybe I'm wrong on both counts because of all the bumps on my head.......or could it be that the bumps are just making me taller?
Wings Over The World
Oh sure, there are advantages to being tall. You can see over the cubicles in the office "cube farm." You get a better view in a crowd without having to stand on your toes. I even recall a study that was completed that showed that taller people were usually paid better and were promoted more often than their shorter counterparts (although not studying the report in detail, there could be other factors that influenced this). But did you ever consider how often tall people hit their heads? Or how about squeezing into a small car? I would certainly like to have the option of owning a small car, but alas, it is the domain of the "height challenged" elite. Sometimes larger cars and smaller SUV's are not even an option, because of the seat height.
I bring this up because of an observation I made during a recent business trip. Of course, I have difficulty travelling on airplanes. The seat pitch and backrest heights are not exactly conducive to a comfortable ride for a tall person. So of course, whenever I can, I request bulkhead or exit row seating. Much to my chagrin, this is usually impossible. Why? Because these coveted seats usually go to children and the elderly.
Now, I don't really have a problem with elderly passengers getting the bulkhead seats, if they require assistance, or have medical conditions that being in these seats, makes their trip more comfortable. However, I do not agree that children should get these seats. Two years ago, I was on an overseas flight. I specifically asked for bulkhead seating, but none was available. When I boarded and looked at the nearest bulkhead seats what did I find? All three of the middle seats were occupied by pre-teen children. Does this make sense when I, or any tall person, has to squeeze into a seat for an overnight flight?
Most importantly, I don't think that the elderly or children should get exit row seating, especially when it comes to overwing exits. Aircraft certifying authorities expect the passengers at overwing exits to be briefed on how to open the exits. If an emergency occurred, they would have to open the 40 lb door, pull it into the cabin, maneuver it around, and throw it out the opening. Do you think a pre-teen or elderly passenger could do this? What about the added complication of an elderly passenger in this location (who may have a medical condition) having to not only open the door, but get through it in a reasonable time so other passengers could do the same? This is a safety issue, and airlines should take note.
Maybe tall people should band together. Complain when you see children and the elderly in these seats. Just because we're tall, doesn't mean we always have things handed to us on a plate. It doesn't mean that we should have to suffer because we are well beyond the "average" height. There is handicapped seating on buses, handicapped parking, even maternity parking. Why can't there be tall person reserved seating on airplanes? Is this such a terrible thing to accommodate? I don't mind giving my height when ordering an airline ticket, if it puts me on a list to get a seat with extra legroom. In fact, if there are only 12 of these seats on an entire aircraft, the airlines should start with the tallest person on the flight and work their way down. Each person is allowed one travelling companion when the flight is longer than 3 hours. The caveat is that if you have a travelling companion that doesn't make the grade, then you have the option to decline the seat and go back into cattle class, and the next person on the list gets the seat. This sounds reasonable, doesn't it?
We can even have those neat little signs with a tall person graphic pasted to the rows of the coveted seats. Or if we really want to stick it to people, we can show a short person, and elderly person and a child in a circle with a line through it. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Yes, the sky IS blue in my world, and yes, I believe in a free and just society. Maybe I'm wrong on both counts because of all the bumps on my head.......or could it be that the bumps are just making me taller?
Wings Over The World
March 31, 2006
Sports Cliches
We gotta put the puck in the net.
We have to put our skates on and make a game of it.
When the game is over, the only thing that matters is what's on the scoreboard.
Our defence didn't play as well as our offence.
We've all gotta dress for the game.
You have to step up to the plate.
etc., etc., ad nauseum...
What's with all the empty sports cliches happening these days? Sure, they've always been around, but what is the difference between what's going on now, and what we had before? Of course, there were the classics from Yogi Berra like, "It ain't over 'til it's over," or "This is like deja vu all over again." Sayings that have weaseled their way into our popular culture lexicon. But I think his '-isms' were probably seen as less empty, because there were fewer cliches out there. I wonder if it's more bothersome now because media outlets have to get a sound bite from everybody and anybody that is remotely associated with sports. That's probably because twenty years ago, you didn't have much choice in where you could get your sports news.
On network TV, you'd have the 10 minutes of sports during the nightly newscast, or the weekend afternoon sports programming. ESPN and TSN started the change, because then you had sports specialty programming, but now you have niche sports programming like OLN and The Golf Channel. Golf Channel?!?!? 24/7/365 of nothing but golf programming? Is this for the golf enthusiast, or a way for insomniacs to fall asleep? Why am I paying for this channel? I don't even play golf, so I certainly don't want to watch it! Why should I pay for it?
Yes, I think that all these sports channels have fed a need for people (mostly men I think, but I suspect more and more women are into it) to watch sports, instead of participate in them. Are people getting lazy as they get older, or are they trying to dive more deeply into the sports they're interested in? Whatever the case is, I wish professional athletes would come up with better sound bites. Hey, what if we protested by not watching these programs?!?!?!?! Drive the viewership down so that there will be some consolidation in the sports channel marketplace. Let the broadcasters know that they shouldn't entice us back unless they can come up with some quality programming....wait...that won't work. Especially when there's a guy in my gym that has two TVs on two different sports channels when he's on the treadmill, one of them being The Golf Channel, and then he ends up talking to the guy running next to him anyway. No, guys like him will never make this suggestion work.
Write to the networks? The cable/satellite companies? Your MP? The Prime Minister? No, I think we're stuck. Sports channels are here to stay and not all professional athletes are Mensa members. I guess I'll have to read the paper when the sportscast is on and continue paying for channels I never use (in fact, they're not on my favourites list, so they get skipped when I'm channel surfing).
Yup, I guess when it comes to sports cliches, Yogi Berra was right. The future ain't what it used to be.
Wings Over The World
We have to put our skates on and make a game of it.
When the game is over, the only thing that matters is what's on the scoreboard.
Our defence didn't play as well as our offence.
We've all gotta dress for the game.
You have to step up to the plate.
etc., etc., ad nauseum...
What's with all the empty sports cliches happening these days? Sure, they've always been around, but what is the difference between what's going on now, and what we had before? Of course, there were the classics from Yogi Berra like, "It ain't over 'til it's over," or "This is like deja vu all over again." Sayings that have weaseled their way into our popular culture lexicon. But I think his '-isms' were probably seen as less empty, because there were fewer cliches out there. I wonder if it's more bothersome now because media outlets have to get a sound bite from everybody and anybody that is remotely associated with sports. That's probably because twenty years ago, you didn't have much choice in where you could get your sports news.
On network TV, you'd have the 10 minutes of sports during the nightly newscast, or the weekend afternoon sports programming. ESPN and TSN started the change, because then you had sports specialty programming, but now you have niche sports programming like OLN and The Golf Channel. Golf Channel?!?!? 24/7/365 of nothing but golf programming? Is this for the golf enthusiast, or a way for insomniacs to fall asleep? Why am I paying for this channel? I don't even play golf, so I certainly don't want to watch it! Why should I pay for it?
Yes, I think that all these sports channels have fed a need for people (mostly men I think, but I suspect more and more women are into it) to watch sports, instead of participate in them. Are people getting lazy as they get older, or are they trying to dive more deeply into the sports they're interested in? Whatever the case is, I wish professional athletes would come up with better sound bites. Hey, what if we protested by not watching these programs?!?!?!?! Drive the viewership down so that there will be some consolidation in the sports channel marketplace. Let the broadcasters know that they shouldn't entice us back unless they can come up with some quality programming....wait...that won't work. Especially when there's a guy in my gym that has two TVs on two different sports channels when he's on the treadmill, one of them being The Golf Channel, and then he ends up talking to the guy running next to him anyway. No, guys like him will never make this suggestion work.
Write to the networks? The cable/satellite companies? Your MP? The Prime Minister? No, I think we're stuck. Sports channels are here to stay and not all professional athletes are Mensa members. I guess I'll have to read the paper when the sportscast is on and continue paying for channels I never use (in fact, they're not on my favourites list, so they get skipped when I'm channel surfing).
Yup, I guess when it comes to sports cliches, Yogi Berra was right. The future ain't what it used to be.
Wings Over The World
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
