We are approaching the time where all the baby boomers should be approaching retirement. Unfortunately, their years of dedicated work to try to make the world a better place is about to be met with a "Sorry, old chap, you have to stay at work."
From the Telegraph Journal, "But most Canadians - especially the baby boom generation - will likely not be able to enjoy the comfortable and carefree lifestyle showcased in Freedom 55 Financial advertisements.
A "Freedom 75" scenario is more likely to be the norm in the years ahead - a contrast to the image of energetic 50-somethings globetrotting to exotic locales." By 2011, Statistics Canada estimates that we will have a population of 33.9 million people, of which 2.239 million will be over 75 (6.6% of the total population). 3.8894 million people will be under 19 years of age (the minimum wage group in society). 2.2953 million people will be between 20-24 years of age (the apprentice and student group in society). Another 2.3302 million will be our most effective subsection of the population, aged 25-29, who are the young workers of tomorrow. Between 0-24 years, 6.1847 million people or 18% of our total population will be only partially able to work. If we consider the consider the group above 75, then nearly a quarter of all people in Canada will be at best minimum wagers.
Also from the Telegraph Journal, ""If we're going to live to 90 or beyond, people are not saving enough for 35 years of retirement. The numbers are sobering that we look at," he said.
"You do have certain mechanisms that kick in, Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan, but I'm not sure that there'll be enough private savings to maintain the lifestyle that Canadians have been accustomed to."
Another sobering thought is that governments are going to have to raise taxes to deal with the rising health care costs that will come with the demographic shift. "
Simply put, we as a society haven't planned for these people to live as long as they have and neither have they. And the worst part in all this is that the reason our government can't plan for this is the social programs they were responsible for, including medicare, social insurance, and old age pension.
So those who created the programs we have come to depend on will have to work longer because of those programs. The givers have to keep on giving while the younger generations continue to profit from their elders.
We don't express our thanks often enough.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Saturday, October 3, 2009
The kick in the nuts they deserve
The 2016 Olympics were awarded to Rio de Janeiro, but for most media outlets, the big story is that Chicago was eliminated first...from the Telegraph Journal, "Senior Australian IOC member Kevan Gosper surmised that Asian voters may have banded together for Tokyo in the first round, at Chicago's expense.
"I'm shocked," Gosper said. "The whole thing doesn't make sense other than there has been a stupid bloc vote."
He worried that the shock exit could do "untold damage" to the already testy relations between the IOC and the U.S. Olympic Committee. They had recent flare-ups over revenue sharing and a USOC TV network.
"To have the president of the United States and his wife personally appear, then this should happen in the first round is awful and totally undeserving," Gosper said."
It's amazing that people feel that the United States DESERVE to host the Olympics again, even though they hosted in 1980, 1984, 1996, and 2002...by contrast, no other nation has even hosted twice in that timeframe...also, add in the fact that the US got caught bribing officials to get the 2002 Salt Lake City games and it is clear that they deserve NOT to host the Olympics until more nations get a chance to host. What kind of International event would it be if one country was guaranteed to host it every couple of years...
Barack Obama was campaigning for the Olympics in his home town, which means that there is a very good chance that they tried to bribe their way to another games, because frankly, Chicago is a terrible choice when stacked up with a Madrid or a Rio de Janeiro (Barcelona is the only Spanish city where the Olympics have been and that was 24 years prior, and the Olympics have NEVER been to South America).
The US consistently points out the flaws with other countries when they are bidding, ignoring their own problems...for example, "Rio's bid, while high on romance, is not without risk. Because of Rio's high crime and murder rates, security will be a constant issue in 2016. Preparing Rio for the Olympics will cost billions of dollars - money that critics said could have been better spent on tackling the city's social problems." This completely undermines the fact that the US has high crime and murder rates as well...with a little research, Brazil sees 25.7 people per 100,000 murdered versus 5.7 for the US...on the other hand, the US has 4160.51 criminals per 100,000 versus only 927.41 for Brazil...
And then there is the USOC...the USOC is a terrorist organization in and of itself...it hides failed drug tests from the IOC, it helps its athletes get away with cheating (there have even been allegations going so far as to suggest that the USOC gave the illegal substances to the athletes)...but the biggest problem the USOC has created is with their planned channel, USOC TV...USOC TV is intended to show all things Olympics, including trials...it doesn't matter that NBC has a channel, Universal Sports, which currently does the same, or that NBC has a LEGAL contract for the rights to show the Olympics, the USOC still intends to go ahead with plans...from the Seattle Times, "Result: The USOC, famous for its insulting "cease-and-desist" letters to small businesses (including a former Olympic National Forest worker who dared publish a mountain trail map with the word "Olympic" in the title) got a little cease-and-desist letter of its own, from the IOC, the Chicago Tribune's Phil Hersh reports today.
It apparently didn't mean much to USOC leaders roughing it at a Sun Valley confab. They barged ahead with previous plans to announce the new network, anyway. And then they feigned surprise at word of raised IOC hackles.
This comes on top, recall, of an ongoing, long-simmering dispute between the two groups over distribution of international broadcast and sponsorship revenues -- a split that much of the rest of the Olympic world believes unfairly favors the United States. That dispute was put on hold recently, much to the relief of Chicago 2016 organizers looking down the barrel of an Oct. 2 IOC host city selection vote. This is the critical time period when peace and calm generally are expected to reign, not only in bidding cities, but between the bidding nations and the IOC."
The USOC, the people who put in the Chicago bid, have been trying to undermine the International Olympic Commitee, prompting Seattle Times to mention, "No sooner had USOC leaders Wednesday finished trumpeting their new, long-discussed U.S. Olympic Network, a joint venture with Comcast expected to launch sometime in 2010, than International Olympic Committee officials were responding angrily to what they called a pattern of American arrogance."
Simply put, a bid that was rife with problems at all levels failed as it should have, yet now the US wants to world to believe they were wronged, even as they are trying to undermine a legally agreed upon deal...
"I'm shocked," Gosper said. "The whole thing doesn't make sense other than there has been a stupid bloc vote."
He worried that the shock exit could do "untold damage" to the already testy relations between the IOC and the U.S. Olympic Committee. They had recent flare-ups over revenue sharing and a USOC TV network.
"To have the president of the United States and his wife personally appear, then this should happen in the first round is awful and totally undeserving," Gosper said."
It's amazing that people feel that the United States DESERVE to host the Olympics again, even though they hosted in 1980, 1984, 1996, and 2002...by contrast, no other nation has even hosted twice in that timeframe...also, add in the fact that the US got caught bribing officials to get the 2002 Salt Lake City games and it is clear that they deserve NOT to host the Olympics until more nations get a chance to host. What kind of International event would it be if one country was guaranteed to host it every couple of years...
Barack Obama was campaigning for the Olympics in his home town, which means that there is a very good chance that they tried to bribe their way to another games, because frankly, Chicago is a terrible choice when stacked up with a Madrid or a Rio de Janeiro (Barcelona is the only Spanish city where the Olympics have been and that was 24 years prior, and the Olympics have NEVER been to South America).
The US consistently points out the flaws with other countries when they are bidding, ignoring their own problems...for example, "Rio's bid, while high on romance, is not without risk. Because of Rio's high crime and murder rates, security will be a constant issue in 2016. Preparing Rio for the Olympics will cost billions of dollars - money that critics said could have been better spent on tackling the city's social problems." This completely undermines the fact that the US has high crime and murder rates as well...with a little research, Brazil sees 25.7 people per 100,000 murdered versus 5.7 for the US...on the other hand, the US has 4160.51 criminals per 100,000 versus only 927.41 for Brazil...
And then there is the USOC...the USOC is a terrorist organization in and of itself...it hides failed drug tests from the IOC, it helps its athletes get away with cheating (there have even been allegations going so far as to suggest that the USOC gave the illegal substances to the athletes)...but the biggest problem the USOC has created is with their planned channel, USOC TV...USOC TV is intended to show all things Olympics, including trials...it doesn't matter that NBC has a channel, Universal Sports, which currently does the same, or that NBC has a LEGAL contract for the rights to show the Olympics, the USOC still intends to go ahead with plans...from the Seattle Times, "Result: The USOC, famous for its insulting "cease-and-desist" letters to small businesses (including a former Olympic National Forest worker who dared publish a mountain trail map with the word "Olympic" in the title) got a little cease-and-desist letter of its own, from the IOC, the Chicago Tribune's Phil Hersh reports today.
It apparently didn't mean much to USOC leaders roughing it at a Sun Valley confab. They barged ahead with previous plans to announce the new network, anyway. And then they feigned surprise at word of raised IOC hackles.
This comes on top, recall, of an ongoing, long-simmering dispute between the two groups over distribution of international broadcast and sponsorship revenues -- a split that much of the rest of the Olympic world believes unfairly favors the United States. That dispute was put on hold recently, much to the relief of Chicago 2016 organizers looking down the barrel of an Oct. 2 IOC host city selection vote. This is the critical time period when peace and calm generally are expected to reign, not only in bidding cities, but between the bidding nations and the IOC."
The USOC, the people who put in the Chicago bid, have been trying to undermine the International Olympic Commitee, prompting Seattle Times to mention, "No sooner had USOC leaders Wednesday finished trumpeting their new, long-discussed U.S. Olympic Network, a joint venture with Comcast expected to launch sometime in 2010, than International Olympic Committee officials were responding angrily to what they called a pattern of American arrogance."
Simply put, a bid that was rife with problems at all levels failed as it should have, yet now the US wants to world to believe they were wronged, even as they are trying to undermine a legally agreed upon deal...
Power
Today, I came along an alarming letter to the editor...it said, "I was dismayed with the front page headline in Wednesday's Telegraph-Journal: "Radical Refit Proposal." What was particularly disheartening was the bizarre recommendation put forward (halt Lepreau refurbishment) and the suspect credibility of the avowed anti-nuke from which it came" and "What the media reports and what I see as a Lepreau worker do not mesh. The project is not in total disarray. Yes, the project is now over half a year behind schedule. There are reasons. I will defer the explanation to project management.
Fortunately, the delays are not due to the condition of the reactor.
Reactor disassembly is basically complete. Inspections have confirmed those reactor components not being replaced to be in remarkably good condition. No serious degradation issues have been encountered.
Of course, the "real" refurbishment capital cost will now exceed the original $1.022 billion by some percentage (guesstimate: less than 25 per cent). A new CANDU 6 reactor would cost over $5 billion.
What about replacement energy costs?
The infamous "$million/day" represents what Lepreau saves when it operates. Sure it hurts provincial cash flow now. But it will be made up over the reactor's extended life."
And why is this alarming? Well, first off, this is a Lepreau worker writing to the Telegraph Journal about how great Lepreau is and what a wing-bat the anti-nuclear expert is...even though the wing-bat is an expert on the subject; whereas, the author of the letter is merely someone trying to fight to make their job doesn't disappear...
Secondly, he is suggesting that the media is lying about the progress of the project...except that all the updates the media get are from the project team.
And even worse, most of the details are off and are off significantly...we are not six months behind, we are EIGHTEEN...he is throwing 250 million dollars over-budget around as if it were a small figure, and then he throws the cost of the CANDU reactor out there...the problem with these monetary aspects is that if we decide to go another route, it will involve not using nuclear, making the cost of a new CANDU 6 reactor completely useless.
The condition of Point Lepreau has NOTHING to do with why the expert suggested that we take a step back...the current financial strain it is putting the province under in a time of economic uncertainty is...if the province does not step back and at least hear proposals on other energy sources (most notably, those that are renewable), then this will be a massive failure to the people on their part...they owe it to the taxpayers to see what hydroelectric would cost in terms of environmental costs and real costs, what wind power would cost in terms of environmental and real costs, and what other renewable energy sources are out there to be had.
One of the worst arguments I have ever heard to justify continuing poor practices is to save jobs...the fact of the matter is that the workers at Lepreau are skilled workers, who could find work elsewhere, especially with whatever energy replaces Lepreau...the only workers who potentially could be out of a job are those whose entire job is to monitor how badly working in a nuclear environment is destroying the workers (and even they could find other work, since most of them have education). No business should get preferential treatment at the expense of the people, just because they employ people...that is why a lot of people hate the airline industry (because they live off this same advantage)...
Whether the Liberals pause the project for a day, a week, or even a month to hear what potential energies could replace Point Lepreau, the possibility of having a more efficient power source which is better for the environment (and which isn't a massive target for would-be terrorists) is one that cannot be overlooked...and the kicker is that we are already off-track, meaning that pushing work back a little bit won't do significantly more damage financially...
Fortunately, the delays are not due to the condition of the reactor.
Reactor disassembly is basically complete. Inspections have confirmed those reactor components not being replaced to be in remarkably good condition. No serious degradation issues have been encountered.
Of course, the "real" refurbishment capital cost will now exceed the original $1.022 billion by some percentage (guesstimate: less than 25 per cent). A new CANDU 6 reactor would cost over $5 billion.
What about replacement energy costs?
The infamous "$million/day" represents what Lepreau saves when it operates. Sure it hurts provincial cash flow now. But it will be made up over the reactor's extended life."
And why is this alarming? Well, first off, this is a Lepreau worker writing to the Telegraph Journal about how great Lepreau is and what a wing-bat the anti-nuclear expert is...even though the wing-bat is an expert on the subject; whereas, the author of the letter is merely someone trying to fight to make their job doesn't disappear...
Secondly, he is suggesting that the media is lying about the progress of the project...except that all the updates the media get are from the project team.
And even worse, most of the details are off and are off significantly...we are not six months behind, we are EIGHTEEN...he is throwing 250 million dollars over-budget around as if it were a small figure, and then he throws the cost of the CANDU reactor out there...the problem with these monetary aspects is that if we decide to go another route, it will involve not using nuclear, making the cost of a new CANDU 6 reactor completely useless.
The condition of Point Lepreau has NOTHING to do with why the expert suggested that we take a step back...the current financial strain it is putting the province under in a time of economic uncertainty is...if the province does not step back and at least hear proposals on other energy sources (most notably, those that are renewable), then this will be a massive failure to the people on their part...they owe it to the taxpayers to see what hydroelectric would cost in terms of environmental costs and real costs, what wind power would cost in terms of environmental and real costs, and what other renewable energy sources are out there to be had.
One of the worst arguments I have ever heard to justify continuing poor practices is to save jobs...the fact of the matter is that the workers at Lepreau are skilled workers, who could find work elsewhere, especially with whatever energy replaces Lepreau...the only workers who potentially could be out of a job are those whose entire job is to monitor how badly working in a nuclear environment is destroying the workers (and even they could find other work, since most of them have education). No business should get preferential treatment at the expense of the people, just because they employ people...that is why a lot of people hate the airline industry (because they live off this same advantage)...
Whether the Liberals pause the project for a day, a week, or even a month to hear what potential energies could replace Point Lepreau, the possibility of having a more efficient power source which is better for the environment (and which isn't a massive target for would-be terrorists) is one that cannot be overlooked...and the kicker is that we are already off-track, meaning that pushing work back a little bit won't do significantly more damage financially...
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Student strike in Venezuela against the taking of political prisoners by President Hugo Chavez
From the Telegraph-Journal, "Student activist Angel Arellano said Wednesday that 163 people - mostly students - have joined the protest since last week, when 10 students set up cots outside the OAS offices in Caracas and vowed to consume only water until the Washington-based group's Interamerican Commission of Human Rights promises to launch a probe. " The strike is in protest after President Hugo Chavez has arrested nearly 40 students for protesting the government...it is estimated that in the last seven years, over 2000 people have been arrested for protesting against the government.
This is after some mayors and governors complained to the Organization of American States about Hugo Chavez's violations of the constitution. The mayor of Caracas (Antonio Ledezma) even went as far as having a hunger strike of his own for 5 days until he was hospitalized (picture below is from El Universal, July 10, 2009) ...
While we pride ourselves on encouraging freedom of speech, Venezuela is arresting anyone who disagrees with the viewpoint of their president...OAS secretary general, Jose Miguel Insulza, has said that he sympathizes with the students and believes that the IACHR should visit Venezuela (http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/09/30/en_pol_esp_insulza-pleads-for-i_30A2819291.shtml), but, alas, Hugo Chavez has denied several requests for IACHR to visit the country to review their policies and investigate the human rights complaints...
The official comment on this is that, "Attorney General Luisa Ortega says Chavez adversaries who have been arrested committed crimes ranging from disturbing the peace to assaulting police officers. "
Protesting against someone who has no concern for the law (especially when they are the leader of the nation) is a natural part of democracy...but at some point, there needs to be an investigation into whether Chavez has committed these acts...an investigation that needs to be carried out by an external source (namely the IACHR)...it is about time they get their say...
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Steven Harper and the recession
Steven Harper says that his stimulus package is working...I say, what stimulus package?
He claims that they have spent 90% of the earmarked stimulus money...that would represent 90% of 22.742 billion dollars planned to stimulate our economy (from the 2009 budget) or 20.4678 billion dollars spent so far...From the Telegraph Journal, "After question period, Baird said the 90 per cent figure was accurate, not just for the infrastructure funding, but for the entire economic stimulus." The entire economic stimulus package, for the record, is supposed to be 29.298 billion dollars including tax breaks and give backs...
Consider that of over 7500 infrastructure and housing projects are expected and only 4000 or roughly 53 percent have happened so far, with 11.589 billion dollars expected to be committed to these projects total and a further 5.257 billion in leverage...unless those remaining 3500 or so jobs have a combined value of less than 1.1589 billion, this number is a figment of Mr. Harper's imagination.
Also, Steven Harper has promised to create or maintain 220,000 jobs...now, I may not be an expert with numbers, but create or maintain means that if a job is created, removed, then recreated with a fancy new name, for example, it would count double, since Mr. Harper is not promising that 220, 000 more people will have jobs (due to his selective language)...
And throughout Steven Harper's claims about what a great job he is doing with the recession, the conservatives continue to posture for an election, keeping the fear in the people of Canada. From the Telegraph Journal, "In question period, Transport Minister John Baird was taking the point in Harper's absence. He said the Liberals were not focused on the economy but "on an unnecessary election.""
He claims that they have spent 90% of the earmarked stimulus money...that would represent 90% of 22.742 billion dollars planned to stimulate our economy (from the 2009 budget) or 20.4678 billion dollars spent so far...From the Telegraph Journal, "After question period, Baird said the 90 per cent figure was accurate, not just for the infrastructure funding, but for the entire economic stimulus." The entire economic stimulus package, for the record, is supposed to be 29.298 billion dollars including tax breaks and give backs...
Consider that of over 7500 infrastructure and housing projects are expected and only 4000 or roughly 53 percent have happened so far, with 11.589 billion dollars expected to be committed to these projects total and a further 5.257 billion in leverage...unless those remaining 3500 or so jobs have a combined value of less than 1.1589 billion, this number is a figment of Mr. Harper's imagination.
Also, Steven Harper has promised to create or maintain 220,000 jobs...now, I may not be an expert with numbers, but create or maintain means that if a job is created, removed, then recreated with a fancy new name, for example, it would count double, since Mr. Harper is not promising that 220, 000 more people will have jobs (due to his selective language)...
And throughout Steven Harper's claims about what a great job he is doing with the recession, the conservatives continue to posture for an election, keeping the fear in the people of Canada. From the Telegraph Journal, "In question period, Transport Minister John Baird was taking the point in Harper's absence. He said the Liberals were not focused on the economy but "on an unnecessary election.""
One thing should be noted is that the conservatives are making it next to impossible to follow the money trail...according to the Telegraph Journal, "Last Thursday, the Liberals released a research report they said was based on more than half the announced projects. They found only 12 per cent of the money has flowed to projects that have begun construction. That funding created only 4,800 jobs - a fraction of the 40,000 the government projected", suggesting that the Conservative Party is planning on announcing the full amount's worth of stimulus monies, but is actually canceling the promised funding as soon as the media turns their backs. In response, "The Conservatives counter not only that 4,000 projects have begun, but many more will be underway this fiscal year." and "Baird also argued that it can be misleading to focus on how much federal funding has flowed. He cited the example of the home renovation tax credit.
Canadians won't get the benefit of it until their tax returns are processed next spring, but the incentive has already stimulated consumer spending and the home renovation sector, he said." The first argument should be problematic to anyone that understands even a shred of the English language. The Conservatives say that they've spent almost all the money, but that they still have plenty of projects up their sleeves (arguing that they've done so much and that they have so much to do yet also trying to say that they've spent almost all their money by throwing out 90% and then suggesting that the number came from thin air). The second argument isn't as clearly egregious, but is nonetheless offensive...the argument is that the benefits will be delayed until next year, and therefore they can claim the money as spent without any idea of how much (basically allowing themselves to take credit for any amount they feel like)...the other problem with this argument is that they are only planning on giving out 1.475 billion between this year and next for this bonus, which is a measly 16% of the housing plan...
One question we should be asking is why are we trusting a man whose last budget said that we our deficit rate was at 29.8 percent last year (debt to our total gross domestic product)...the proposed ways of turning this into a surplus are changing the Equalization formula again (read: giving less money in transfer payments for the services the federal government is supposed to be paying for, and passing the buck onto lower levels of government), reviews of departmental spending and corporate assets (read: anything that contains social or development is gone), and last but not least, they are taking a "use it or lose it approach" (read: don't be surprised if some of the promised money magically doesn't find its way to its intended recipients)...
Quick note: I am a liberal and do not support Mr. Harper because he conceals everything he does, and impedes the democratic process by refusing access to essential financial details (namely, pretty much everything)...that being said, I do not support Michael Ignatieff or Jack Layton's NDP either...
Monday, September 28, 2009
Democracy vs America
Today, Marc Emery, aka the Prince of Pot, was taken into custody in British Columbia at the request of the US Department of Justice. He faces a minimum of 10 years in jail for his actions...but this is not a problem...the problem is that Marc Emery is a Canadian citizen who operated a Canadian business on Canadian soil, on which he paid taxes to the Canadian government...now the US wants to charge him for conspiracy to make marijuana (even though he freely sells seeds and nothing more), selling marijuana seeds over the internet to Americans, and he was also charged with money laundering, even though he has paid income taxes on the money, and even filed his source of income as "marijuana seed vendor".
But now, he is facing extradition to the United States, to face their tougher laws...from DEA leader Karen Tandy, "Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery's illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on." and "Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery's illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on." (taken from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer)...these two statements clearly indicate that Marc Emery is not being sought as a drug peddler, but rather as a political activist, that he is being persecuted for his political beliefs...and according to Article 4 of the Canada-US extradition treaty (posted below), it is illegal to extradite someone for political purposes...and in fact, it is a violation of his democratic rights to punish him as a political figure (though punishing him for the crime he has committed is fine)...
The fact of the matter here is that Marc Emery is a criminal...he sells marijuana seeds which is illegal, and has mailed his catalog to MPs (he stopped upon his arrest in 2005, which also shut his business down)...he deserves to be punished for these crimes, by OUR government...but he also deserves to be free from persecution for his political ideals, including his championing for the decriminalization of marijuana...
Like him or hate him, if Marc Emery is convicted by an American court, it will set a dangerous precedent, one where you could face large penalties for what we consider small crimes, penalties against your political beliefs and not against your actions...
But now, he is facing extradition to the United States, to face their tougher laws...from DEA leader Karen Tandy, "Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery's illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on." and "Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery's illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on." (taken from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer)...these two statements clearly indicate that Marc Emery is not being sought as a drug peddler, but rather as a political activist, that he is being persecuted for his political beliefs...and according to Article 4 of the Canada-US extradition treaty (posted below), it is illegal to extradite someone for political purposes...and in fact, it is a violation of his democratic rights to punish him as a political figure (though punishing him for the crime he has committed is fine)...
The fact of the matter here is that Marc Emery is a criminal...he sells marijuana seeds which is illegal, and has mailed his catalog to MPs (he stopped upon his arrest in 2005, which also shut his business down)...he deserves to be punished for these crimes, by OUR government...but he also deserves to be free from persecution for his political ideals, including his championing for the decriminalization of marijuana...
Like him or hate him, if Marc Emery is convicted by an American court, it will set a dangerous precedent, one where you could face large penalties for what we consider small crimes, penalties against your political beliefs and not against your actions...
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Roman Polanski
Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland today on a 30 year old charge for having sex with a 13 year-old...The US government is working on the papers to get him extradited to America, so he can serve jail-time for this 30 year-old crime. The French government is working to try to get Polanski back to France to protect him from this sentence, saying that he has had a hard life and that he should be allowed to live in peace.
No one can question that Roman Polanski has had a hard life...he survived Krakow and he had his wife murdered at the hands of Charlie Manson's followers...but to protect a convicted felon, to say that he has suffered enough when he ran from the country after the judge decided that 42 days wasn't a tough enough sentence for someone who gave alcohol and Quaalude to a 13 year-old in order to have sex with her, is downright wrong...
There are people who are put in jail for reasons that are cruel and irrational every day, but Roman Polanski was not one of them...he should be put behind bars for this heinous act...and he should face additional jail time for fleeing the country to avoid having to serve the sentence...
No one can question that Roman Polanski has had a hard life...he survived Krakow and he had his wife murdered at the hands of Charlie Manson's followers...but to protect a convicted felon, to say that he has suffered enough when he ran from the country after the judge decided that 42 days wasn't a tough enough sentence for someone who gave alcohol and Quaalude to a 13 year-old in order to have sex with her, is downright wrong...
There are people who are put in jail for reasons that are cruel and irrational every day, but Roman Polanski was not one of them...he should be put behind bars for this heinous act...and he should face additional jail time for fleeing the country to avoid having to serve the sentence...
Thursday, September 24, 2009
When protesting goes too far
Hotel Courtenay Bay has received some press recently over a terrible incident that should serve notice to the "pack mentality" that union workers seem to have in this city...a group of out-of-province workers booked reservations at this hotel (on Irving's dime) and were awakened each morning at 4 am to fog horns, blockades and a large ruckus...while Hotel Courtenay Bay estimates their costs at 1 million dollars (there is no way that figure is accurate given that they charge $144 a night (that would be the equivalent to 6944 reserved nights...sure, there would be food debts as well, but you still wouldn't get near this figure)), there is an even greater damage that this could serve to the city of Saint John...
Ask anyone what the overwhelming theme in this city is, and they will tell you that Irving controls the city...but here were Irving employees, brought in special for the project being deterred by the union, with little to no help offered to the Irvings to protect their interests...
And this is why the city's real reputation should be broadcast high and low...while the Irvings control a lot of the businesses, the unions control the city, if only because the police intentionally look the other way whenever they want to do something...
The protesters gained a sense of righteousness because some of them were stupid enough to stand in front of a Hotel Courtenay Bay bus and almost got hit, while they were trespassing...this city has laws against trespassing, against disturbing the peace, and against unlawful gathering, but apparently, this wasn't a cause the police were willing to uphold the law for...
From the Telegraph Journal, "Mike Duncan, a protester, said the group is sorry for the inconveniences the demonstrators caused the homes located in a residential neighbourhood next to the hotel. He said the group planned to visit each home Friday night and offer an apology and a grocery store gift certificate."...he goes on to say that isn't sorry for disturbing Hotel Courtenay Bay's right to conduct business...
The fact that someone can claim responsibility for actions which are illegal in this land and have it published in the paper without the police even considering laying charges has to leave even the calmest of individuals a little unnerved...what if when they demonstrate next (whenever that happens to be), they attack and hurt some innocent person who was curious what the fuss was about? Sure, they'll claim that they didn't mean to, but they were allowed to form a mob, without any legal ramifications for their actions...
Once again we see a situation where people have buddies in the right places, so justice is blindfolded...and once again, the guilty parties are dumb enough to credit for it...only to not face any sort of punishment...
Ask anyone what the overwhelming theme in this city is, and they will tell you that Irving controls the city...but here were Irving employees, brought in special for the project being deterred by the union, with little to no help offered to the Irvings to protect their interests...
And this is why the city's real reputation should be broadcast high and low...while the Irvings control a lot of the businesses, the unions control the city, if only because the police intentionally look the other way whenever they want to do something...
The protesters gained a sense of righteousness because some of them were stupid enough to stand in front of a Hotel Courtenay Bay bus and almost got hit, while they were trespassing...this city has laws against trespassing, against disturbing the peace, and against unlawful gathering, but apparently, this wasn't a cause the police were willing to uphold the law for...
From the Telegraph Journal, "Mike Duncan, a protester, said the group is sorry for the inconveniences the demonstrators caused the homes located in a residential neighbourhood next to the hotel. He said the group planned to visit each home Friday night and offer an apology and a grocery store gift certificate."...he goes on to say that isn't sorry for disturbing Hotel Courtenay Bay's right to conduct business...
The fact that someone can claim responsibility for actions which are illegal in this land and have it published in the paper without the police even considering laying charges has to leave even the calmest of individuals a little unnerved...what if when they demonstrate next (whenever that happens to be), they attack and hurt some innocent person who was curious what the fuss was about? Sure, they'll claim that they didn't mean to, but they were allowed to form a mob, without any legal ramifications for their actions...
Once again we see a situation where people have buddies in the right places, so justice is blindfolded...and once again, the guilty parties are dumb enough to credit for it...only to not face any sort of punishment...
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The city of destruction
Imagine if you would for a moment that there is a city which was once the crown jewel of Canada...the oldest city, and the most vibrant port...now, in a perfect world, this city would harvest this great advantage and continue to prosper by adapting...
Unfortunately, in reality, this city has made bad decision after bad decision...they enacted a law saying that no new buildings could be over 25 stories (preventing skyscrapers and the accompanying big business)...they added parishes on each side, but allowed them to continue to be separate, a division that still exists today with major roads in each part, and arguably the most confusing street layout in the country...and then every summer, the worst of all possible decisions happened, with the city starting construction (if you can call it constructive) on every major route into the city, making it easier to not support the city.
The reason I question whether the construction is constructive are the terrible practices which the city employs...for one, the city allows construction companies to take on jobs, cut the pavement and leave it for months at a time. The causes significant risks to anyone who happens to use these routes (and at times, there can be construction on three of the four paths from east to the centre of the city, and both paths from the west side)...another problem is that the city's standard for pavement quality is terrible, making so that certain roads are paved once a year or once every two years, which is both incredibly inconvenient and a terrible waste of money...and the city does a terrible job of planning, with one road built on a swamp, and several built below sea level, with poor traffic control on nearly all of them...
But the worst thing about this city and their destruction ways is stupid decision after stupid decision...the city's pension plan is 151 million dollars short, so what do they do? They commit roughly 130 million dollars to build a new police station when the old one is perfectly fine...also, they built a new transit headquarters for 23.5 million, when they had a working facility and worked on a proposal to "gift" the old land to a big box store which would kill all the businesses in the area...and the kicker is that it doesn't seem to matter who gets elected, because there are always enough people on council who have no vision towards the future at all...
Unfortunately, in reality, this city has made bad decision after bad decision...they enacted a law saying that no new buildings could be over 25 stories (preventing skyscrapers and the accompanying big business)...they added parishes on each side, but allowed them to continue to be separate, a division that still exists today with major roads in each part, and arguably the most confusing street layout in the country...and then every summer, the worst of all possible decisions happened, with the city starting construction (if you can call it constructive) on every major route into the city, making it easier to not support the city.
The reason I question whether the construction is constructive are the terrible practices which the city employs...for one, the city allows construction companies to take on jobs, cut the pavement and leave it for months at a time. The causes significant risks to anyone who happens to use these routes (and at times, there can be construction on three of the four paths from east to the centre of the city, and both paths from the west side)...another problem is that the city's standard for pavement quality is terrible, making so that certain roads are paved once a year or once every two years, which is both incredibly inconvenient and a terrible waste of money...and the city does a terrible job of planning, with one road built on a swamp, and several built below sea level, with poor traffic control on nearly all of them...
But the worst thing about this city and their destruction ways is stupid decision after stupid decision...the city's pension plan is 151 million dollars short, so what do they do? They commit roughly 130 million dollars to build a new police station when the old one is perfectly fine...also, they built a new transit headquarters for 23.5 million, when they had a working facility and worked on a proposal to "gift" the old land to a big box store which would kill all the businesses in the area...and the kicker is that it doesn't seem to matter who gets elected, because there are always enough people on council who have no vision towards the future at all...
Monday, September 21, 2009
Making the environment a little better one steak at a time
Let me preface this blog by saying that I am not a vegetarian, and don't think I could/would give up meat entirely by choice...
Now, today I decided to write about the role agriculture is having on society and our future...I'll start with a couple of quotes from Wikipedia:
According to a 2006 United Nations initiative, the livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contributes on a "massive scale" to deforestation[2], air and water pollution, land degradation, loss of topsoil, climate change[3], the overuse of resources including oil and water, and loss of biodiversity. The initiative concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."
and:
Some argue that the adoption of a lacto-ovo vegetarian or entirely plant-based vegan diet is best, but may not be totally necessary, because even modest reductions in meat consumption in industrialised societies would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources. "One personal act that can have a profound impact on these issues is reducing meat consumption. To produce 1 pound of feedlot beef requires about 2,400 gallons of water and 7 pounds of grain (42). Considering that the average American consumes 97 pounds of beef (and 273 pounds of meat in all) each year, even modest reductions in meat consumption in such a culture would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources."
Basically, the gist of these quotes is that we as a society consume WAY too much meat and that the US alone could feed 800 million people with the grain eaten by the livestock they produce...we have become overly dependent on meat, and as a result have put ourselves in a bit of a quandary...according to Dennis Avery, Director of the Centre for Global Food Issues, "The world must create five billion vegans in the next several decades, or triple its total farm output without using more land." Simply put, we as a society are using 2-3 times the resources we need to just to quench our thirst for tasty meat...
According to goveg.com, eating one pound of meat is the equivalent of driving an SUV 40 miles...also, "A 2006 United Nations report found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined." and "Raising animals for their flesh, eggs, and milk is one of the world’s leading emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2). But global warming is caused by more than just CO2. Animal agriculture is the leading source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions, which—combined with carbon dioxide—causes the vast majority of global warming" which is increasingly alarming given that CO2 is less dangerous for the environment than nitrous oxide and methane...
Now, what is it that I'm suggesting? Am I saying that 5 billion of us need to go vegan or we'll all die? No, the fact of the matter is that if you want to have a steak, you should have a steak...but at the same time, you should know the impact that that one steak has on the environment and consider changing a meal that would otherwise be meat-included away from meat... We can argue and bicker as a society about how much action has to happen, but until people start doing something, they are putting my future and yours in jeopardy...we can make the environment better by simply knowing the implications of our actions and adjusting accordingly (it is like a diet...if you cheat on your diet, normally cutting back a slight bit the next meal will help offset the cheating...only in this case, you aren't cheating, simply enjoying the foods you love)
Now, today I decided to write about the role agriculture is having on society and our future...I'll start with a couple of quotes from Wikipedia:
According to a 2006 United Nations initiative, the livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contributes on a "massive scale" to deforestation[2], air and water pollution, land degradation, loss of topsoil, climate change[3], the overuse of resources including oil and water, and loss of biodiversity. The initiative concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."
and:
Some argue that the adoption of a lacto-ovo vegetarian or entirely plant-based vegan diet is best, but may not be totally necessary, because even modest reductions in meat consumption in industrialised societies would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources. "One personal act that can have a profound impact on these issues is reducing meat consumption. To produce 1 pound of feedlot beef requires about 2,400 gallons of water and 7 pounds of grain (42). Considering that the average American consumes 97 pounds of beef (and 273 pounds of meat in all) each year, even modest reductions in meat consumption in such a culture would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources."
Basically, the gist of these quotes is that we as a society consume WAY too much meat and that the US alone could feed 800 million people with the grain eaten by the livestock they produce...we have become overly dependent on meat, and as a result have put ourselves in a bit of a quandary...according to Dennis Avery, Director of the Centre for Global Food Issues, "The world must create five billion vegans in the next several decades, or triple its total farm output without using more land." Simply put, we as a society are using 2-3 times the resources we need to just to quench our thirst for tasty meat...
According to goveg.com, eating one pound of meat is the equivalent of driving an SUV 40 miles...also, "A 2006 United Nations report found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined." and "Raising animals for their flesh, eggs, and milk is one of the world’s leading emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2). But global warming is caused by more than just CO2. Animal agriculture is the leading source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions, which—combined with carbon dioxide—causes the vast majority of global warming" which is increasingly alarming given that CO2 is less dangerous for the environment than nitrous oxide and methane...Now, what is it that I'm suggesting? Am I saying that 5 billion of us need to go vegan or we'll all die? No, the fact of the matter is that if you want to have a steak, you should have a steak...but at the same time, you should know the impact that that one steak has on the environment and consider changing a meal that would otherwise be meat-included away from meat... We can argue and bicker as a society about how much action has to happen, but until people start doing something, they are putting my future and yours in jeopardy...we can make the environment better by simply knowing the implications of our actions and adjusting accordingly (it is like a diet...if you cheat on your diet, normally cutting back a slight bit the next meal will help offset the cheating...only in this case, you aren't cheating, simply enjoying the foods you love)
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The sea dogs
In honour of tonight's home opener for the Saint John Sea Dogs, I thought I would dedicate tonight's blog to sea dogs...Sea dog is a nickname given to seals, such as the ones that live in Saint John harbour.
The greatest threat to seals is a barbaric ritual known as the great seal hunt...this is an annual event where "sealers" kill seals usually aged between 25 days and 3 months old...the government's rationalization for this is that the areas don't have any work for the workers to sustain a living, and that they therefore need to kill seals.
The other arguments for this senseless slaughter are that it is tradition and that it is profitable to tax payers...the problems with this are that tradition has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong (for example, British law used to allow for men to have their way with their wives whenever they wanted and with whatever force they chose) and that the profitability of the hunt is questionable at best...
The seal hunt is condemned by Greenpeace, because "the quotas are "scientifically indefensible" because they don't take into account the actual number of seals killed in the hunt — including those that are "struck and lost," or discarded because of pelt damage" and by the International Fund for Animal Welfare who argue that the hunt in general is inhumane, and that some sealers make it worse by engaging in such activities as skinning seals alive, hunting seals that are 14 days or less old, and that seals are clubbed or shot and left to suffer only to be killed later...
200 people have been charged since 1996 so it is nearly impossible to argue that these behaviors do not happen, though the government argues that this is only an indication that they are enforcing regulations...
In 2006, the seal hunt was supposedly one of the most profitable in history, but since then the quota (number of seals the government decides the sealers can kill) and the value of the pelts (from $105 in 2006 to an estimated $15 in 2009) have deteriorated significantly...
Another argument against the hunt is that the arbitrary manner in which it is run makes it unsustainable (the quotas aren't based on anything concrete, so unless the value of the pelts is high, there is a good chance that any economic goal could be missed)...
All in all, there is no logical reason that we as a society should support such an event, but the kicker in this is that the government subsidizes parts of the hunt, meaning that we as taxpayers are actually paying to support this travesty...
The greatest threat to seals is a barbaric ritual known as the great seal hunt...this is an annual event where "sealers" kill seals usually aged between 25 days and 3 months old...the government's rationalization for this is that the areas don't have any work for the workers to sustain a living, and that they therefore need to kill seals.
The other arguments for this senseless slaughter are that it is tradition and that it is profitable to tax payers...the problems with this are that tradition has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong (for example, British law used to allow for men to have their way with their wives whenever they wanted and with whatever force they chose) and that the profitability of the hunt is questionable at best...
The seal hunt is condemned by Greenpeace, because "the quotas are "scientifically indefensible" because they don't take into account the actual number of seals killed in the hunt — including those that are "struck and lost," or discarded because of pelt damage" and by the International Fund for Animal Welfare who argue that the hunt in general is inhumane, and that some sealers make it worse by engaging in such activities as skinning seals alive, hunting seals that are 14 days or less old, and that seals are clubbed or shot and left to suffer only to be killed later...
200 people have been charged since 1996 so it is nearly impossible to argue that these behaviors do not happen, though the government argues that this is only an indication that they are enforcing regulations...
In 2006, the seal hunt was supposedly one of the most profitable in history, but since then the quota (number of seals the government decides the sealers can kill) and the value of the pelts (from $105 in 2006 to an estimated $15 in 2009) have deteriorated significantly...
Another argument against the hunt is that the arbitrary manner in which it is run makes it unsustainable (the quotas aren't based on anything concrete, so unless the value of the pelts is high, there is a good chance that any economic goal could be missed)...
All in all, there is no logical reason that we as a society should support such an event, but the kicker in this is that the government subsidizes parts of the hunt, meaning that we as taxpayers are actually paying to support this travesty...
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Media
From, Wikipedia, "
This problem can extend beyond politics though, because certain companies of influence can effect what appears in the news and what doesn't...now, I'm not saying that everything that happens should appear in the news (for example, if the local refinery has a fire and no one can see it, I'd rather not have to worry about), but there are some things that don't make the news that should.
An example of this can be found in Saint John where nearly every major street in the city has natural gas pipes underneath them. Keep in mind that the pipes have a guaranteed kill radius of 10 metres if they explode and a danger radius of 300 metres (danger radius was actually on a letter I received because my apartment is within 300 metres of the pipeline)...it would seem like it would be the responsible thing to print these numbers in the newspaper (or air them on the news), but that hasn't happened (and almost certainly won't)...the problem lies in the fact that the purpose of the pipes is to heat some of the entities owned by the company that owns the paper (meaning that their private interest and the public's interest are in direct conflict). Now, I'm not saying that this company is wrong to have the pipes (in fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that it probably was a great decision), but I think that it is wrong to own a media outlet (in their case, all the newspapers in New Brunswick) when the size of your companies creates a very real possibility that one of them should be in the news (even if it isn't in the company's best interest)...
And herein lies a massive problem...I'm not suggesting that this company is censoring our news intentionally to prevent us from finding things out, but it is scary to have the final say on all our newspapers go to someone who has a vested interest in our refineries, pulp and paper mills, lube plant, some hardware stores, softwood lumber deals, our oil prices (and gasoline by extension), and even themselves. Can you imagine if someone goes on strike, and opens the paper the next day to read a scathing article about how petty they are? Now granted, it would likely be true, if they were on strike from the company, but still, what would be the incentive to not highlight how greedy the workers are being?
Another subject that gets shoddy coverage is sports...anyone who watches a large amount of hockey has surely watched Don Cherry rant about "good-ole Canadian boys"...or if you watch Sportsnet, every second word when they are talking about hockey seems to be Leafs...it doesn't matter that Toronto is a longshot to make the playoffs, and that a large number of non-Toronto fans get stuck watching this, they still drone on...the problem I have isn't even the subject, though...it is the fact that some media outlets pay people who are less informed than a large subsection of the fanbase to be "reporters"...For guys like Eklund, a rumor reporter who charges for his rumors, there is no punishment for the fact that he steals a large amount of his rumors from internet message boards and makes up virtually all of the rest...his success rate with his rumors is so low that a random fan making everything up would have a 50/50 shot of being right just as often...
Bias in the sports media becomes a problem when the announcers tell you that the team looks like a playoff team when they haven't got a shot (hello, Pittsburgh Pirates)...because teams employ a large number of these sports journalists, they have to start from a biased position.
One last bias the media shows is a bias of reaction...media outlets (newspapers, radio stations, and television stations) are run as businesses, meaning that they choose to convey the news that is going to attract people more...this is why local government approving menial bills is something you have to really dig to find, but if one of them calls another something like "pompous" (which would likely be true, but would still somehow merit an apology in their ridiculous world), it would be front page news...this is also why groups like Greenpeace, the Canadian Cancer Society and PETA are often relegated to lesser sections or left out completely, even if their message is as important or more important...
People often look at America in jest (especially CNN)...but one thing you have to appreciate about their system is that even when they are trying to scare the crap out of everyone, they keep their priorities straight...that is, the local issue comes first, unless it is major...yes, they still have the same biases against issues that they don't think will sell, but they tend to argue everything down the middle, more or less (except hot button issues), because in reality, the only point of view that matters is the truth...
One of the leading voices in the U.S. on the subject of Journalistic Standards and Ethics is the Society of Professional Journalists. The Preamble to its Code of Ethics states:
- ...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. "
This problem can extend beyond politics though, because certain companies of influence can effect what appears in the news and what doesn't...now, I'm not saying that everything that happens should appear in the news (for example, if the local refinery has a fire and no one can see it, I'd rather not have to worry about), but there are some things that don't make the news that should.
An example of this can be found in Saint John where nearly every major street in the city has natural gas pipes underneath them. Keep in mind that the pipes have a guaranteed kill radius of 10 metres if they explode and a danger radius of 300 metres (danger radius was actually on a letter I received because my apartment is within 300 metres of the pipeline)...it would seem like it would be the responsible thing to print these numbers in the newspaper (or air them on the news), but that hasn't happened (and almost certainly won't)...the problem lies in the fact that the purpose of the pipes is to heat some of the entities owned by the company that owns the paper (meaning that their private interest and the public's interest are in direct conflict). Now, I'm not saying that this company is wrong to have the pipes (in fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that it probably was a great decision), but I think that it is wrong to own a media outlet (in their case, all the newspapers in New Brunswick) when the size of your companies creates a very real possibility that one of them should be in the news (even if it isn't in the company's best interest)...
And herein lies a massive problem...I'm not suggesting that this company is censoring our news intentionally to prevent us from finding things out, but it is scary to have the final say on all our newspapers go to someone who has a vested interest in our refineries, pulp and paper mills, lube plant, some hardware stores, softwood lumber deals, our oil prices (and gasoline by extension), and even themselves. Can you imagine if someone goes on strike, and opens the paper the next day to read a scathing article about how petty they are? Now granted, it would likely be true, if they were on strike from the company, but still, what would be the incentive to not highlight how greedy the workers are being?
Another subject that gets shoddy coverage is sports...anyone who watches a large amount of hockey has surely watched Don Cherry rant about "good-ole Canadian boys"...or if you watch Sportsnet, every second word when they are talking about hockey seems to be Leafs...it doesn't matter that Toronto is a longshot to make the playoffs, and that a large number of non-Toronto fans get stuck watching this, they still drone on...the problem I have isn't even the subject, though...it is the fact that some media outlets pay people who are less informed than a large subsection of the fanbase to be "reporters"...For guys like Eklund, a rumor reporter who charges for his rumors, there is no punishment for the fact that he steals a large amount of his rumors from internet message boards and makes up virtually all of the rest...his success rate with his rumors is so low that a random fan making everything up would have a 50/50 shot of being right just as often...
Bias in the sports media becomes a problem when the announcers tell you that the team looks like a playoff team when they haven't got a shot (hello, Pittsburgh Pirates)...because teams employ a large number of these sports journalists, they have to start from a biased position.
One last bias the media shows is a bias of reaction...media outlets (newspapers, radio stations, and television stations) are run as businesses, meaning that they choose to convey the news that is going to attract people more...this is why local government approving menial bills is something you have to really dig to find, but if one of them calls another something like "pompous" (which would likely be true, but would still somehow merit an apology in their ridiculous world), it would be front page news...this is also why groups like Greenpeace, the Canadian Cancer Society and PETA are often relegated to lesser sections or left out completely, even if their message is as important or more important...
People often look at America in jest (especially CNN)...but one thing you have to appreciate about their system is that even when they are trying to scare the crap out of everyone, they keep their priorities straight...that is, the local issue comes first, unless it is major...yes, they still have the same biases against issues that they don't think will sell, but they tend to argue everything down the middle, more or less (except hot button issues), because in reality, the only point of view that matters is the truth...
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Service
Today, I was driving through a Tim Horton's parking lot (which happens to be adjacent to a service station), when I started pondering how little service we actually get. For starters, I can only think of two service stations (including gas) in all of Saint John. It seems that the Irvings and the Petro-Cans that were built on offering gasoline, convenience, and service are starting to rely more on the first two and quietly removing the latter option from the equation...it is sad when you drive by a service station and wonder when the gas or service option will disappear off it...weirder still will be when one day we have to explain to a new generation what a service station is when 99% of all gas pumps are gas stations (and not service stations).
Service extends to the grocery store...We have two major grocers in town, who have entirely different approaches to the grocery experience....one hires the bare minimum, closes their speedy checkout early, expects people to be their own cashiers for no benefit whatsoever, charges a fee for bags, and never has anyone around when you have a question you want to ask...the other stays open 24 hours (at some locations), keeps their speedy checkout open until at least 10, has a customer service that is actually intended to serve people (instead of being bogged down by being a returns/water bottle area), and has more staff working at virtually all times of the day, including people in the aisles who while they are merchandising can assist with any questions one might have. The weird thing is that the prior company has been outselling the latter company despite their contempt for their own customers, or at least they were until they started charging 5 cents per bag.
And then as the person came over the speaker at the drive-thru, I thought about service at restaurants...for the most part, people who answer drive-thru's are about as good customer service-wise as you can be, yet a simple "thank you" or "have a good day" brightens their day up. Thinking about that, it seems that we expect little to no service and take the service we do get for granted, never stopping to thank the person who is actually offering the service. I make it a point to say thank you to every person who renders me a service of any kind, no matter how big or small...the fact of the matter is that they don't have to offer you their help (most businesses tolerate a lot of crap), and could be having a terrible day...the least a person can do is acknowledge the effort.
Service extends to the grocery store...We have two major grocers in town, who have entirely different approaches to the grocery experience....one hires the bare minimum, closes their speedy checkout early, expects people to be their own cashiers for no benefit whatsoever, charges a fee for bags, and never has anyone around when you have a question you want to ask...the other stays open 24 hours (at some locations), keeps their speedy checkout open until at least 10, has a customer service that is actually intended to serve people (instead of being bogged down by being a returns/water bottle area), and has more staff working at virtually all times of the day, including people in the aisles who while they are merchandising can assist with any questions one might have. The weird thing is that the prior company has been outselling the latter company despite their contempt for their own customers, or at least they were until they started charging 5 cents per bag.
And then as the person came over the speaker at the drive-thru, I thought about service at restaurants...for the most part, people who answer drive-thru's are about as good customer service-wise as you can be, yet a simple "thank you" or "have a good day" brightens their day up. Thinking about that, it seems that we expect little to no service and take the service we do get for granted, never stopping to thank the person who is actually offering the service. I make it a point to say thank you to every person who renders me a service of any kind, no matter how big or small...the fact of the matter is that they don't have to offer you their help (most businesses tolerate a lot of crap), and could be having a terrible day...the least a person can do is acknowledge the effort.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
My take on the Phoenix Coyotes' saga
Today, I'd like to post on the Phoenix Coyotes. Now everyone that knows me knows that I like sports a lot (too much according to the love of my life)...the Phoenix saga is one that should be addressed in parts...
First off, there is Jerry Moyes. He signed a contract to let the NHL take the team (in exchange for him not having to continue to lose money), then put the team he didn't own anymore into bankruptcy...on top of that, his company guaranteed their lease with the City of Glendale (or Glendale would get 750 million dollars). As part of his bankruptcy, he signed an intent to sell to Jim Balsille under the condition that Balsille can move the team (a clause that Moyes did not have the authority to agree to, and which would automatically violate the lease, making the City of Glendale an even bigger debtor than Moyes)...Moyes put a team he didn't own into bankruptcy and orchestrated an agreement of sale which would de-fraud the NHL and the City of Glendale out of close to 1 billion dollars combined...he should go to jail!
Then, there is Balsille. He has never put in a legitimate bid for an expansion. He wants to buy a team for next to nothing with a condition that he be able to move it without ever having to compensate the league for them losing their biggest potential bargaining chip. If the court were ever to award the team to Jim, the NHL would appeal and the Supreme Court would likely reverse the decision.
Doug MacLean joined the Balsille bid to give it credit...how does having the man who ruined Columbus' cap situation (and spent years keeping Columbus at the bottom of the standings with poor decision after poor decision. Sure, the guy can coach...but he can't hire coaches, and he signs players to ridiculous contracts, cough...Rick Nash at 5.4 million after 2 seasons, Huselius at 4.75 million and Umberger at 3.75 million...cough
The NHL also wants to buy the team; to be able to privately sell the team at a later date...Bruckheimer was interested at two different points in the selling process, but has twice had Moyes reveal aspects of his bid that were supposed to be sealed. If the NHL buys the team, they can take the time to see if Phoenix is a viable market or if the team should be moved...keep in mind that the fans of Phoenix only had a good team at the very beginning, but the team has been terrible for a decade...in contrast, Winnipeg was starting to get better every year as their attendance dwindled.
And last but not least are the Toronto Maple Leafs...they have been saying over and over again that they will block any attempts to add a team to Southern Ontario, despite Anti-trust courts having determined that no team can hold rights to a territory, but that a league as a whole can...the funny thing is that if Toronto really upsets the NHL, the NHL can force a sale, in effect forcing the Maple Leafs to sell (perhaps to Balsille, allowing him to own a team in Southern Ontario)...either way, this is a classless move by an organization that has constantly been run by elitist snobs...
First off, there is Jerry Moyes. He signed a contract to let the NHL take the team (in exchange for him not having to continue to lose money), then put the team he didn't own anymore into bankruptcy...on top of that, his company guaranteed their lease with the City of Glendale (or Glendale would get 750 million dollars). As part of his bankruptcy, he signed an intent to sell to Jim Balsille under the condition that Balsille can move the team (a clause that Moyes did not have the authority to agree to, and which would automatically violate the lease, making the City of Glendale an even bigger debtor than Moyes)...Moyes put a team he didn't own into bankruptcy and orchestrated an agreement of sale which would de-fraud the NHL and the City of Glendale out of close to 1 billion dollars combined...he should go to jail!
Then, there is Balsille. He has never put in a legitimate bid for an expansion. He wants to buy a team for next to nothing with a condition that he be able to move it without ever having to compensate the league for them losing their biggest potential bargaining chip. If the court were ever to award the team to Jim, the NHL would appeal and the Supreme Court would likely reverse the decision.
Doug MacLean joined the Balsille bid to give it credit...how does having the man who ruined Columbus' cap situation (and spent years keeping Columbus at the bottom of the standings with poor decision after poor decision. Sure, the guy can coach...but he can't hire coaches, and he signs players to ridiculous contracts, cough...Rick Nash at 5.4 million after 2 seasons, Huselius at 4.75 million and Umberger at 3.75 million...cough
The NHL also wants to buy the team; to be able to privately sell the team at a later date...Bruckheimer was interested at two different points in the selling process, but has twice had Moyes reveal aspects of his bid that were supposed to be sealed. If the NHL buys the team, they can take the time to see if Phoenix is a viable market or if the team should be moved...keep in mind that the fans of Phoenix only had a good team at the very beginning, but the team has been terrible for a decade...in contrast, Winnipeg was starting to get better every year as their attendance dwindled.
And last but not least are the Toronto Maple Leafs...they have been saying over and over again that they will block any attempts to add a team to Southern Ontario, despite Anti-trust courts having determined that no team can hold rights to a territory, but that a league as a whole can...the funny thing is that if Toronto really upsets the NHL, the NHL can force a sale, in effect forcing the Maple Leafs to sell (perhaps to Balsille, allowing him to own a team in Southern Ontario)...either way, this is a classless move by an organization that has constantly been run by elitist snobs...
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
The social event that is becoming a social problem
For smokers, one of the hardest parts of giving up smoking is giving up the social aspect of smoking...for those who work for a company that provides a smoking area, not smoking can make an employee feel like they are out of the loop.
The Canadian Cancer Society estimates that tobacco is responsible for roughly 30% of all cancer, including 85% of the lung cancer cases. It is also responsible for roughly 47,500 deaths every year in Canada. 18% of our population smokes, but most employers make exceptions for such a minority.
Though the numbers are outdated, CBC figures that we as Canadians lost approximately 8 billion dollars in 1993 alone (approximately 3 billion in Medicare to directly treat this group and 8 million in lost taxes versus 2.7 billion in revenues). Even without adjusting these numbers for an increasing population (which has had a fairly static smoking rate), this would have our entire national debt incurred in 4 years (we are at approximately 29.8 billion dollars). Some would argue that excise taxes on tobacco could even this out, but keep in mind some alarming statistics :
1. Smokers 15-19 has been consistently in the 17-18% range
2. Our government is expecting to lose large amounts of money over the next few years, with questions about whether or not we'll be able to transition from the baby boomers to the next generation.
and 3. The baby boomers are now the ones who are about to need care for their smoking...is the money even there for them?
There has been some hope towards survival, though...the government of British Columbia has successful sued tobacco companies to recover Medicare costs on behalf of the people...and Phillip Morris had a very large defeat in '97 in which they were blamed for the medical problems they caused...
Needless to say, there are a lot of smokers who won't quit until tobacco sales are banned in Canada...maybe we should make it a social event to save our country...
The Canadian Cancer Society estimates that tobacco is responsible for roughly 30% of all cancer, including 85% of the lung cancer cases. It is also responsible for roughly 47,500 deaths every year in Canada. 18% of our population smokes, but most employers make exceptions for such a minority.
Though the numbers are outdated, CBC figures that we as Canadians lost approximately 8 billion dollars in 1993 alone (approximately 3 billion in Medicare to directly treat this group and 8 million in lost taxes versus 2.7 billion in revenues). Even without adjusting these numbers for an increasing population (which has had a fairly static smoking rate), this would have our entire national debt incurred in 4 years (we are at approximately 29.8 billion dollars). Some would argue that excise taxes on tobacco could even this out, but keep in mind some alarming statistics :
1. Smokers 15-19 has been consistently in the 17-18% range
2. Our government is expecting to lose large amounts of money over the next few years, with questions about whether or not we'll be able to transition from the baby boomers to the next generation.
and 3. The baby boomers are now the ones who are about to need care for their smoking...is the money even there for them?
There has been some hope towards survival, though...the government of British Columbia has successful sued tobacco companies to recover Medicare costs on behalf of the people...and Phillip Morris had a very large defeat in '97 in which they were blamed for the medical problems they caused...
Needless to say, there are a lot of smokers who won't quit until tobacco sales are banned in Canada...maybe we should make it a social event to save our country...
Monday, September 14, 2009
The 300 million dollar elephant in the room
Over the past four elections (2000, 2004, 2006, and 2008), Canadians have been on the hook for expenses of 200.6, 277, 270, and 288.2 million dollars respectively. Also, the 2008 election had an additional expense of 3.5 million for canceling scheduled by-elections.
Now, we stand at the brink of another election only one year after the last, due to the House's inability to work together. At some point, we, the people, need to start objecting to the needless wasting of hundreds of millions of dollars. By calling a snap election to try to steal a majority, Steven Harper's conservatives could end up costing Canadians $600 million between this year and last, or roughly 1/2 the amount of their economic stimulus package (estimated at 1.237 billion dollars).
It is easy to blame Harper on this one...he has run both Dion and Ignatieff's names through the mud over the past year...he plagiarized a speech about Armed Forces from Australia's former Prime Minister (and said that it wasn't a big deal)...he has constantly terrorized the Canadian public into fearing his opposition...
And yet, despite all these negatives, the other side has a monster of a negative against them...they've held the house hostage since Christmas using the Canadian populace as collateral. The weird thing about this, is that it has been a brilliant idea (forcing the Conservatives to be accountable for their actions for the first time since they've taken power). The problem arose late last week, when Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Layton both announced that they were done co-operating with the Conservatives...Steven Harper has co-operated with everything they have forced him to do, but suddenly they can't work with him? How does this make sense?
And suddenly that elephant is starting to stir...if the Liberals and NDP are going to make public comments about not supporting Harper, he may attempt something stupid to intentionally have parliament broken...with the control he has over the media, we might not even find out what the vote that topples the government is for...and even if we do, it probably won't matter because Harper has been the one trying to carry on, whereas the Liberals and NDP have been trying to manipulate their way into every inch of spotlight they can get...
Which leads to the point...a government is supposed to lead the nation. But what happens when all the people at the top act with the same amount of maturity as kindergarteners...this is the dilemna that we as a nation face, as we roll towards another farce of an election...there is no leader worthy of our vote, yet no one could run against the big 3 and win, due to our political system...last election (2008), 59.1 percent of the population voted, the lowest total in the history of the nation...if we have a new election, expect that number to be eclipsed since Ignatieff is as immature as Dion was, and Harper and Layton are both still at the top of the totem pole...
Now, we stand at the brink of another election only one year after the last, due to the House's inability to work together. At some point, we, the people, need to start objecting to the needless wasting of hundreds of millions of dollars. By calling a snap election to try to steal a majority, Steven Harper's conservatives could end up costing Canadians $600 million between this year and last, or roughly 1/2 the amount of their economic stimulus package (estimated at 1.237 billion dollars).
It is easy to blame Harper on this one...he has run both Dion and Ignatieff's names through the mud over the past year...he plagiarized a speech about Armed Forces from Australia's former Prime Minister (and said that it wasn't a big deal)...he has constantly terrorized the Canadian public into fearing his opposition...
And yet, despite all these negatives, the other side has a monster of a negative against them...they've held the house hostage since Christmas using the Canadian populace as collateral. The weird thing about this, is that it has been a brilliant idea (forcing the Conservatives to be accountable for their actions for the first time since they've taken power). The problem arose late last week, when Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Layton both announced that they were done co-operating with the Conservatives...Steven Harper has co-operated with everything they have forced him to do, but suddenly they can't work with him? How does this make sense?
And suddenly that elephant is starting to stir...if the Liberals and NDP are going to make public comments about not supporting Harper, he may attempt something stupid to intentionally have parliament broken...with the control he has over the media, we might not even find out what the vote that topples the government is for...and even if we do, it probably won't matter because Harper has been the one trying to carry on, whereas the Liberals and NDP have been trying to manipulate their way into every inch of spotlight they can get...
Which leads to the point...a government is supposed to lead the nation. But what happens when all the people at the top act with the same amount of maturity as kindergarteners...this is the dilemna that we as a nation face, as we roll towards another farce of an election...there is no leader worthy of our vote, yet no one could run against the big 3 and win, due to our political system...last election (2008), 59.1 percent of the population voted, the lowest total in the history of the nation...if we have a new election, expect that number to be eclipsed since Ignatieff is as immature as Dion was, and Harper and Layton are both still at the top of the totem pole...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
