After reading this, I have to ask: How many people have died in police custody after being given Tylenol. This goes along with the question of how many people have died from "excited delirium" that were not in contact with police. Oh, and can someone explain how a pacemaker or defibrillator works if electric currents do not affect the heart.
Bill C-6 provides that "an elector shall have an uncovered face when the elector is proving his or her identity".
So just what is the problem with this new rule.
Why should we not have our face uncovered when proving our identity when voting, whether we use photo ID or not.
I can think of two reasons, one being medical for which there is already an exemption. The other might be a matter of "reasonable accommodation" for religious or cultural requirements, except that no religious or cultural group has requested that proving ones identity with one's face covered when voting be allowed. The only request has been that Muslim women be allowed to uncover their faces in front of female officials rather than male officials, which has been accommodated in the bill.
This "controversy" all began when the Chief Electoral Officer decided to address a non-problem by issuing a statement clarifying the fact that the existing law did in fact allow the practice of proving one's identity with one's face covered. As it turned out the only people interested in taking advantage of this "right" were people protesting the fact that the law did in fact allow it.
Yes, it is seemingly irrelevant to require the face be uncovered when photo ID is not being checked and I know the motivations of some people supporting this rule might be less than pure, but for whatever reasons there is strong support for this rule, including at least one Canadian Muslim organization.
Perhaps the Green Party and others who so vehemently oppose this rule should focus their attention on important matters of public policy rather than fighting for "rights" that nobody actually wants and that just create a backlash against the recipients of those unrequested "rights"
After months of negotiations the government has reached an agreement in the dispute over the Chief of Defence Staff's refusal to take direction from his civilian masters. The agreement will see civilian control return to the military.
On Friday General Rick Hillier will resign as Chief of Defence Staff and leave the Canadian Forces. On Monday Hillier will be appointed as the new Minister of National Defence. General, oops I mean citizen, Hillier will seek election to the House of Commons in a by-election in the newly created constituency of Kandahar.
When asked to explain this unusual arrangement, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said "hey, it worked in Pakistan".
Facebook began at Harvard University and was soon opened up to all universities, university students and alumni. It was a wonderful networking tool for the academic community.
But it was not to remain so. As it’s income generating potential became known it’s creators positioned it as a marketing tool by opening it up to the whole world, making it just another MySpace, though perhaps more sophisticated and certainly with more business savvy.
The transformation from a networking site to a marketing site came with the policy of allowing others to run applications on top of Facebook, virtually selling you, your personal information, and your list of friends to outside marketers. Thousands of these applications have been implemented on Facebook.
Jennifer LaBorde, of the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh Advance Titan writes that ”Facebook applications disguise immoral advertising business”.
Between the Lines at ZDNet states that this can be “downright dangerous”.
The newest Facebook application that has raised the most concern is called Beacon and it will tell your friends what you buy online (and it automatically opts you into the application). Simon Barrett of Blogger News Network writes that privacy experts are concerned that Facebook may have crossed the line from being social to being invasive.
But perhaps more troubling are concerns raised by TechCrunch that Facebook is censoring search results for political reasons.
I remember when the Internet was non-commercial and primarily an academic network with public access via Freenets, such as the Cleveland Freenet, the world’s first Freenet, and the National Capital FreeNet of which I was ”one of the first information providers”, as organizations and individuals who provided information via the Freenets and Internet were then called. The Internet was very much a networking tool at that stage - for academics, public interest organizations and individuals.
I remember the concerns being raised when it was first proposed that commercial use of the Internet be allowed, because” in the beginning” business was not allowed on the Internet. As one who shared those concerns I was relieved to find that, for the most part, business use of the net has been positive, providing useful resources to the public and customers.
However concerns have been raised lately about the corporate interests that control the hardware networks that the Internet runs on favouring certain commercial users over the broader public interest. This is a concept known as net neutrality.
I use the Internet for social networking, primarily through mountain biking and photography sites that operate on a membership fee or donation funding basis.
This blog is on a commercial site, but there is no intrusion on the blog itself except for the compulsory task bar at the top. Though advertising options are made available that would provide revenue to me and the service owner (Google) I have not been required to have any advertising on my blog.
It would be nice to see a real social networking site for the academic community - universities, professors, students and alumni. It could be developed by the open software community, hosted co-operatively on the university networks and maintained by volunteers.
With Facebook the original purpose has become secondary to generating revenues for it’s owners. Facebook has become the worst of capitalism on the net and I call on all progressive Internet users to BOYCOTT FACEBOOK.
These words were taken from my Grade 13 history notes from 1968-1969 (Mr. Varpio, LaSalle Secondary School, Sudbury, Ontario). They are from a handout entitled "The Myth of Lincoln - Globe, April 14, 1965, By Harry Pitt, London Observer Service".
These words were stated by Abraham Lincoln in 1858 during the Senate election campaign in response to the incumbent Stephen Douglas:
I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about the social or political equality of the white and black races - I am not ... in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to inter-marry with white people.Lincoln, in 1862, while President and prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, stated:
There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that also. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union.I will leave you to come to your own conclusions on whether or not Abraham Lincoln was a racist.
Was the man who said this a racist:
I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about the social or political equality of the white and black races - I am not ... in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to inter-marry with white people.I will leave you to ponder these words over the weekend.
There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
According to the Ottawa Citizen, “Kanata’s founder”, developer Bill Teron, thinks that there are not enough people using the Greenbelt so we should develop it and build another Ottawa inside it. He states “It's a gorgeous place, but very seldom do you see people within it. Here, a million people would connect."
In case you think you did not read this correctly Bill Teron wants to build a city of one million people inside our Greenbelt.
According to the Citizen: “Within the developed land, Mr. Teron envisioned small "villages" of 5,000 to 10,000 people each, which would be developed around roads such as Woodroffe and Merivale”. After all, what good are environmental lands with trails in them when you can have villages instead. And what good is greenspace without roads running through it, as Teron states: “"We would be the only city in the world in which our ring roads were through a green paradise."
As a regular user of the greenbelt I know people use it. They may not crammed together on the trails or lined up to get on them like at a ride at Canada’s Wonderland but they are using the trails, and enjoying them because they are not congested. One can only imagine what putting a city of a million people inside it would do to the Greenbelt. Not being a fan of horror movies I would rather not imagine that
And yes, Teron has some novel ideas about adding to the greenbelt, but that would not make up for destroying what is there now. We all know what would happen if this plan was taken seriously - the negative parts of the plan would be implemented and then it would be discovered that the positive aspects are “impractical and unworkable”.
It is time for us all to stand up for the greenbelt.
The complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be seen in it’s long history, yet it’s solution is a basically simple one.
The conflict started before the creation of the State of Israel following the Second world War (which was no doubt influenced by the treatment of the Jews by the Nazi regime).
Israel was created by the major powers stealing land from the Arabs and Palestinians which led to immediate war and conflicts which have continued ever since. These wars have led to Israel unilaterally stealing more land from it’s neighbouring countries leading to continuous Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.
At the moment the Palestinians are divided. Following the death of Yasser Arafat, a moderate Mahmoud Abbas, from the Fatah movement, was elected President of the Palestinian National Authority. Following that the more militant Hamas movement won the Palestinian Parliamentary elections, while Abbas remained President. Conflict arose between the two movements leading to Hamas officials being ousted from their positions in the Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian President Abbas issuing a decree outlawing the Hamas militia and executive force.
On the Israeli side there is conflict between those who believe Israel should exist in it’s original borders and these who believe in permanently annexing the lands taken from the Palestinians after the creation of the State of Israel.
At times the idea of peace between Israelis and Palestinians seems futile. But one only has to look to Northern Ireland and South Africa to see that the seemingly impossible is possible. In both these cases peace came about because both sides had the courage to talk to each other, rather than invoking the convenient excuse of “not negotiating with terrorists” even if each side considered the other to be terrorists. Who would have thought that black and white South Africans would come together to build a new country,
There is only one ultimate solution and it is essentially a simple one and the sooner both sides accept this the sooner a lasting peace can be established.
The solution essentially comes down to understanding the most and least that each side can accept.
We could argue forever whether the State of Israel should have been created the way it was but, as most Palestinians have come to accept, that is a historical fact that is simply not going to change. It has been a huge and difficult step for the Palestinians to accept that, after all it was their land that was stolen from them. But come to accept it they have. That is the most they can be expected to accept. The least they can be expected to accept is to have their own Palestinian State and have Israel give back the land they stole since the creation of the State of Israel with no exceptions. The original boundaries must be restored, including the status of Jerusalem at the time Israel was created.
The least that Israel can be expected to accept is to have their right to exist accepted by the international community, including Palestinians and Arab states. The most they can be expected to give up is all the land they stole after the creation of the state of Israel, a not unreasonable expectation.
The beauty of this solution is that it provides something that is acceptable to the moderate majority on both sides and thus reduces the ability of extremist to rally support, That is not to say that both Israelis and Palestinians will not have to deal with the extremists within their own ranks. The Palestinians have already shown they are willing to do that and without having to fight an external enemy at the same time, they can be more effective.
It also means Israelis and Palestinians will no longer have a need to fear each other and be enemies but can work towards being partners in the Middle East.
It is as simple (and as complicated) as that.
My wife and I are planning to travel to Vienna for our 30th anniversary, which means we will be flying. Although our specific plans are not made yet, I decided to see what the cost of carbon offsets for our return flight would be if we flew via Air Canada to Frankfurt return. At economy the flights would cost about $2700 and the carbon offsets approximately $40 (about 1.5 % of the cost). The carbon offsets would pay for a reforestation project that would supposedly offset the carbon released into the atmosphere by our share of the flights.
The problem with carbon offsets is that they can be used to buy off your guilt and to justify to yourself that your carbon emitting activities are not part of the problem. You can drive the gas guzzling SUV and take the overseas vacations and buy your way out of responsibility.
The other problem is that we need to reduce our carbon dioxide emitting activities at the same time as we undertake the kind of environmental projects, such as reforestation projects, that the carbon offsets finance.
But the fact is that some people are just not going to care and will refuse to limit their carbon creating habits, while those that are environmentally conscious are still going to have to travel by automobile or air at times, even if they consciously limit such travel.
The best way to do our part is to reduce our carbon emissions as much as possible and offset those we cannot reduce with environmental projects such as reforestation. Carbon offsets are one way of doing that, and they should not be limited to the voluntary contributions of the environmentally conscious.
Carbon offsets should be mandatory and built into the cost of air travel, gasoline and other vehicle fuels.
