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
July 25, 2006
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
