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
May 17, 2006
May 16, 2006
Gas Price Fixing
With the high cost of gasoline (since last summer...before Hurricane Katrina hit), there's been a lot of talk about fixing the gas price at a set amount. Oil companies would then have to give at least two weeks notice for any increases to the price, thus giving time for consumers to adjust to the new price. This is SO a bad idea!
There is already gas price fixing on the East Coast. Nova Scotia will be the last of the four provinces to institute this practice, starting July 1st. Studies have shown that gas price fixing is actually more costly to consumers, by at least 1 cent a litre, but Nova Scotia's rationale is that their constituents want stability in pricing. Well, if world oil prices spike significantly, oil companies can apply to the province to have the two week cycle waived...How does that improve stability of gas prices at the pumps? In effect, by fixing the price of gas, the oil companies don't have to compete for your business, therefore more money pours into their already fat wallets. Yes, it will be stable...for the oil companies!
What I learned in Economics 101 is that it's all about supply and demand. The greater the supply, the lower the price to move the product. The lower the supply, the higher the price that can be commanded. As users of the product, consumers get the short end of the stick. If you're sensitive to the price of gas, then let the market forces rule and buy gas when the price is down. Consider buying gas when you still have half a tank of gas. Small price to pay for the inconvenience of filling up more often, compared to buying at whatever the price is when you're faced with the big "E" on the gas gauge.
In fact, I've noticed trends in gas pricing. Whether it's the day of the week, time of day, before a long weekend, whatever. Wherever you are (except maybe on the East Coast), take a mental note of these trends and adjust your gas buying habits accordingly. If you notice the gas price goes up just before the weekend, fill up during the middle of the week, then top up as required on the weekend, if you can't wait until the middle of the following week. Sounds simple doesn't it? Of course, those of you with those huge gas-guzzling vehicles like Hummers (which, I noticed, are decked out in nice shiny accessories, and never seem to be muddy since they're probably never taken off-road) don't have to worry because you don't really care what the price is as long as you can occupy as much space on the road and parking lots as you possibly can.
Better yet, do you really want to stick it to oil companies? Take public transit, bike, or walk. You'll be and feel healthier. Yes these options may take a little longer, and there's more effort required on your part, but you'll save money and the environment. Public transit doesn't serve you well? Write to the politicians that represent you. Contact the transit services. Still can't get out of your car? How about carpooling? Plenty of HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes popping up on the highways and city streets. If you share a car, you'll get to your destination faster. Still can't do it? There's always the last resort of buying a small gas-sipping car. If you're the only one in the vehicle, do you really need to be in a Lincoln Navigator? You can go to the other extreme and get a Smart Car. Easy on gas, easy to park. Too extreme for you? There are plenty of offerings from the North American Big 3, as well as imports, that are easy on gas. If you think you need a large vehicle to carry stuff from Home Depot, consider how often you do this and whether renting a vehicle whenever you require that kind of capacity would do the trick, instead of commuting daily in a V8 with a lot of empty space behind you. Home Depot even provides an on-the-spot rental truck service. Might save you some substantial coin in the long run.
If you complain about the price of gas, then I think something that I've said resonates with you and you can adjust your transportation needs accordingly. If you drive a large vehicle and want to keep it, well there's nothing I can say to convince you to change, so I guess we'll see your wide-butt vehicle on the roads and occupying two spaces in the parking lots.
Either way, fixing the price of gas is not the answer. Let market forces decide the price so that consumers can benefit.
As a post script, let me offer this. After Hurricane Katrina hit last September, the price of gas was about 20 cents higher per litre at the pumps than it is now, with the current cost of a barrel of oil at almost record levels. Do you really think oil companies are looking after consumers' best interest? Supply and demand. Supply and demand...
Wings Over The World
There is already gas price fixing on the East Coast. Nova Scotia will be the last of the four provinces to institute this practice, starting July 1st. Studies have shown that gas price fixing is actually more costly to consumers, by at least 1 cent a litre, but Nova Scotia's rationale is that their constituents want stability in pricing. Well, if world oil prices spike significantly, oil companies can apply to the province to have the two week cycle waived...How does that improve stability of gas prices at the pumps? In effect, by fixing the price of gas, the oil companies don't have to compete for your business, therefore more money pours into their already fat wallets. Yes, it will be stable...for the oil companies!
What I learned in Economics 101 is that it's all about supply and demand. The greater the supply, the lower the price to move the product. The lower the supply, the higher the price that can be commanded. As users of the product, consumers get the short end of the stick. If you're sensitive to the price of gas, then let the market forces rule and buy gas when the price is down. Consider buying gas when you still have half a tank of gas. Small price to pay for the inconvenience of filling up more often, compared to buying at whatever the price is when you're faced with the big "E" on the gas gauge.
In fact, I've noticed trends in gas pricing. Whether it's the day of the week, time of day, before a long weekend, whatever. Wherever you are (except maybe on the East Coast), take a mental note of these trends and adjust your gas buying habits accordingly. If you notice the gas price goes up just before the weekend, fill up during the middle of the week, then top up as required on the weekend, if you can't wait until the middle of the following week. Sounds simple doesn't it? Of course, those of you with those huge gas-guzzling vehicles like Hummers (which, I noticed, are decked out in nice shiny accessories, and never seem to be muddy since they're probably never taken off-road) don't have to worry because you don't really care what the price is as long as you can occupy as much space on the road and parking lots as you possibly can.
Better yet, do you really want to stick it to oil companies? Take public transit, bike, or walk. You'll be and feel healthier. Yes these options may take a little longer, and there's more effort required on your part, but you'll save money and the environment. Public transit doesn't serve you well? Write to the politicians that represent you. Contact the transit services. Still can't get out of your car? How about carpooling? Plenty of HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes popping up on the highways and city streets. If you share a car, you'll get to your destination faster. Still can't do it? There's always the last resort of buying a small gas-sipping car. If you're the only one in the vehicle, do you really need to be in a Lincoln Navigator? You can go to the other extreme and get a Smart Car. Easy on gas, easy to park. Too extreme for you? There are plenty of offerings from the North American Big 3, as well as imports, that are easy on gas. If you think you need a large vehicle to carry stuff from Home Depot, consider how often you do this and whether renting a vehicle whenever you require that kind of capacity would do the trick, instead of commuting daily in a V8 with a lot of empty space behind you. Home Depot even provides an on-the-spot rental truck service. Might save you some substantial coin in the long run.
If you complain about the price of gas, then I think something that I've said resonates with you and you can adjust your transportation needs accordingly. If you drive a large vehicle and want to keep it, well there's nothing I can say to convince you to change, so I guess we'll see your wide-butt vehicle on the roads and occupying two spaces in the parking lots.
Either way, fixing the price of gas is not the answer. Let market forces decide the price so that consumers can benefit.
As a post script, let me offer this. After Hurricane Katrina hit last September, the price of gas was about 20 cents higher per litre at the pumps than it is now, with the current cost of a barrel of oil at almost record levels. Do you really think oil companies are looking after consumers' best interest? Supply and demand. Supply and demand...
Wings Over The World
May 11, 2006
Flag Flap
Since this was big news last week, I'm a little late with this one, but a parliamentary inquiry was just decided on yesterday.
The issue was should the Canadian flag on the Peace Tower (at Parliament Hill) be lowered to half mast whenever a soldier is killed overseas? Previously under the Liberal government, it was, but recently when four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan were killed, Prime Minister Harper decided that this would no longer be accommodated, that they would be recognized during the national day of mourning for soldiers on Novemeber 11th, Remembrance Day.
There were certainly critics of Mr. Harper for doing this, mainly from the opposite side of the house (the Liberals and NDPers). But, surprisingly, veterans groups and many of the families of the slain soldiers are okay with this. They feel that ceremonies during November 11th were sufficient to honour their fallen comrades, sons and daughters.
The Liberals, specifically ex-Prime Minister Paul Martin, asked whether it was the Speaker of the House (a Liberal who must be non-partisan in his administration of the House) who actually had dominion, thus the authority, over whether to lower the flag over the Peace Tower. The speaker, based on his research on the responsibilities of those in question, and applying Parliamentary procedure, ruled that it was the government that was responsible for the raising and lowering of the flag, and the government is led by Prime Minister Harper. Therefore, it is his decision.
After all this political posturing, and some self-reflective thought, as much as it pains me to, I will have to say that I agree with Mr. Harper. Whatever his motivations may be (and some have accused him of taking the American route of downplaying the number of soldiers killed in overseas conflicts, so that his own political popularity doesn't suffer), I believe he is doing the right thing. Especially considering that Veterans groups also support this route.
Let's not cheapen the value of lowering the flag on the Peace Tower each time a soldier dies in conflict overseas. Unfortunately, it may come to a point when the flag will have to be at half mast for the entire year. Instead, let us honour "Our Glorious Dead" on the day that we have reserved for them since 1919, i.e. November 11th. And if you didn't do so before, now more than ever you should wear a poppy to signify your honour and respect for those that have fallen in service to their country, whether you support any of the conflicts or not. Remembrance Day is not a day for political partisanship, or protest. It has one purpose. Please honour that purpose.
Having said all that, the federal government can go one step further to honour the individuals who have sacrificed their lives in the current conflict. I suggest that on the day a soldier is buried, that all the federal buildings in the town, city or county where the soldiers are being buried, should lower their flags on that day. It's the least they can do. This way, it becomes more personalized where a home town can honour one of their fallen sons or daughters.
And this thing about the media showing soldiers on their final journey home in a casket. The military will no longer allow the media on military property to film this, in deference to the fallen soldiers' families, they say. I've seen some of the coverage that has occurred in the past and I would have to disagree with the military (who probably got their orders from the Prime Minister to take this action) on this one. The media has been very respectful. They set their cameras up at a distance, and they do not impose on the mourning families. Surely the military can allow this so the entire country can mourn with the families. Some people have spoken out that they would like to go through a mourning process too. Soldiers have died in service to our country, we should be allowed to pay our respects. If, however, the families do not wish media coverage of the funeral service so that they may have a private ceremony, certainly we must give them that.
Wings Over The World
The issue was should the Canadian flag on the Peace Tower (at Parliament Hill) be lowered to half mast whenever a soldier is killed overseas? Previously under the Liberal government, it was, but recently when four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan were killed, Prime Minister Harper decided that this would no longer be accommodated, that they would be recognized during the national day of mourning for soldiers on Novemeber 11th, Remembrance Day.
There were certainly critics of Mr. Harper for doing this, mainly from the opposite side of the house (the Liberals and NDPers). But, surprisingly, veterans groups and many of the families of the slain soldiers are okay with this. They feel that ceremonies during November 11th were sufficient to honour their fallen comrades, sons and daughters.
The Liberals, specifically ex-Prime Minister Paul Martin, asked whether it was the Speaker of the House (a Liberal who must be non-partisan in his administration of the House) who actually had dominion, thus the authority, over whether to lower the flag over the Peace Tower. The speaker, based on his research on the responsibilities of those in question, and applying Parliamentary procedure, ruled that it was the government that was responsible for the raising and lowering of the flag, and the government is led by Prime Minister Harper. Therefore, it is his decision.
After all this political posturing, and some self-reflective thought, as much as it pains me to, I will have to say that I agree with Mr. Harper. Whatever his motivations may be (and some have accused him of taking the American route of downplaying the number of soldiers killed in overseas conflicts, so that his own political popularity doesn't suffer), I believe he is doing the right thing. Especially considering that Veterans groups also support this route.
Let's not cheapen the value of lowering the flag on the Peace Tower each time a soldier dies in conflict overseas. Unfortunately, it may come to a point when the flag will have to be at half mast for the entire year. Instead, let us honour "Our Glorious Dead" on the day that we have reserved for them since 1919, i.e. November 11th. And if you didn't do so before, now more than ever you should wear a poppy to signify your honour and respect for those that have fallen in service to their country, whether you support any of the conflicts or not. Remembrance Day is not a day for political partisanship, or protest. It has one purpose. Please honour that purpose.
Having said all that, the federal government can go one step further to honour the individuals who have sacrificed their lives in the current conflict. I suggest that on the day a soldier is buried, that all the federal buildings in the town, city or county where the soldiers are being buried, should lower their flags on that day. It's the least they can do. This way, it becomes more personalized where a home town can honour one of their fallen sons or daughters.
And this thing about the media showing soldiers on their final journey home in a casket. The military will no longer allow the media on military property to film this, in deference to the fallen soldiers' families, they say. I've seen some of the coverage that has occurred in the past and I would have to disagree with the military (who probably got their orders from the Prime Minister to take this action) on this one. The media has been very respectful. They set their cameras up at a distance, and they do not impose on the mourning families. Surely the military can allow this so the entire country can mourn with the families. Some people have spoken out that they would like to go through a mourning process too. Soldiers have died in service to our country, we should be allowed to pay our respects. If, however, the families do not wish media coverage of the funeral service so that they may have a private ceremony, certainly we must give them that.
Wings Over The World
May 08, 2006
Supreme Court Ruling on Drinking at a House Party
I have to say that I support the Canadian Supreme Court's ruling that 'Social Hosts,' i.e. the hosts at a private house party, are not responsible for any of their guests that drive home drunk and get into an accident. This in no way means I condone drinking and driving, I just think that if someone hosts a party and one of their guests gets into accident and is found to be drunk, that the host should not bear unlimited liability for the accident.
A number of years ago, public bars went through this same issue. Their argument was that they should not be held responsible. However, the situation is different in the case of bars, as opposed to the recent ruling. At a bar, you are not allowed to bring outside drinks in, and the alcohol is distributed from a central point. Staff, who are agents of the bar, and have had some experience dealing with patrons and can monitor alcoholic intake of the people they serve, can cut people off when it comes to subsequent drink orders. Therefore, the consumption of alcohol is strictly controlled. Not so, at a house party.
At a house party, the host may provide alcohol, or it might be BYOB (Bring Your Own Booze), or someone might just sneak a bottle in. Since the host cannot entirely control the flow of drinks, how can they have a duty of care to ensure that their guests do not drive home drunk? In fact, if the host was to be find liable, then I would say that every person who attended the party had a similar liability, since they all had the opportunity to observe the actions of a guest and dissuade that person from driving if they had too much to drink. Just think of the anti-drinking and driving campaign slogan of "friends don't let friends drink and drive."
I'm not saying that this should absolve hosts from being responsible in their administering a party. Of course they should do what they can to ensure all their guests, as well as the community at large, are safe. When court judgements are made, the test is what would the "reasonable man" do, i.e. what is common sense? I can get into a whole rant about common sense, but that's for another time. Right now, I'm just saying that party hosts should not have unlimited liability for their guests. If they did, then there wouldn't be any parties because people would be afraid to invite people over. That would be a stark world indeed.
My advice to party hosts: continue throwing parties, but don't let them get too big; make sure you know everybody, or at least know someone who can vouch for guests you don't know; and if the booze is flowing, keep an eye on anyone who seems to be drinking excessively and make sure you ask for their car keys -- better yet, ask 2 or 3 people to help you watch that person.
My advice to party goers: if you're going to drink, don't drive -- take a taxi, get a ride, take transit, or arrange to sleep over; if you see someone at the party drinking excessively, let the host know and keep an eye on them; if you suspect someone is drunk, help the host in deterring them from driving.
I thought we were already living in a culture where it was unacceptable to drink and drive, but obviously there are still many people that do. As with many things, we have to look out for each other. Don't let someone's bravado dissuade you from doing what you know is right.
Wings Over The World
A number of years ago, public bars went through this same issue. Their argument was that they should not be held responsible. However, the situation is different in the case of bars, as opposed to the recent ruling. At a bar, you are not allowed to bring outside drinks in, and the alcohol is distributed from a central point. Staff, who are agents of the bar, and have had some experience dealing with patrons and can monitor alcoholic intake of the people they serve, can cut people off when it comes to subsequent drink orders. Therefore, the consumption of alcohol is strictly controlled. Not so, at a house party.
At a house party, the host may provide alcohol, or it might be BYOB (Bring Your Own Booze), or someone might just sneak a bottle in. Since the host cannot entirely control the flow of drinks, how can they have a duty of care to ensure that their guests do not drive home drunk? In fact, if the host was to be find liable, then I would say that every person who attended the party had a similar liability, since they all had the opportunity to observe the actions of a guest and dissuade that person from driving if they had too much to drink. Just think of the anti-drinking and driving campaign slogan of "friends don't let friends drink and drive."
I'm not saying that this should absolve hosts from being responsible in their administering a party. Of course they should do what they can to ensure all their guests, as well as the community at large, are safe. When court judgements are made, the test is what would the "reasonable man" do, i.e. what is common sense? I can get into a whole rant about common sense, but that's for another time. Right now, I'm just saying that party hosts should not have unlimited liability for their guests. If they did, then there wouldn't be any parties because people would be afraid to invite people over. That would be a stark world indeed.
My advice to party hosts: continue throwing parties, but don't let them get too big; make sure you know everybody, or at least know someone who can vouch for guests you don't know; and if the booze is flowing, keep an eye on anyone who seems to be drinking excessively and make sure you ask for their car keys -- better yet, ask 2 or 3 people to help you watch that person.
My advice to party goers: if you're going to drink, don't drive -- take a taxi, get a ride, take transit, or arrange to sleep over; if you see someone at the party drinking excessively, let the host know and keep an eye on them; if you suspect someone is drunk, help the host in deterring them from driving.
I thought we were already living in a culture where it was unacceptable to drink and drive, but obviously there are still many people that do. As with many things, we have to look out for each other. Don't let someone's bravado dissuade you from doing what you know is right.
Wings Over The World
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
