(Aired January 28, 2010)
While there are those who have given us the doom and gloom perspective on the Olympics, and what costs we might be looking at to pay for these Games, I think it's time we hopped on the bandwagon and started showing a little Olympic spirit. Please tell me what value there is in protesting Olympic events, whether peaceful or not? Please tell me what you accomplish with the glass half empty approach? Absolutely nothing.
Let us assume the naysayers are right, and we are going to be in the hole big-time for the Olympic games. The Games are here, the money is going to be spent. So why not try to now make our province a spectacle of excitement to show the world what there is to attract people to British Columbia. The long-term positives of the Games may be somewhat intangible, but positives there are. Who knows how many people around the world will be watching the Games? They see the beautiful city, the features on the province as a whole, the skiing, the beaches, and so on, and they spend thousands to come here on a vacation. There will be many people who will do that. Do you honestly think that taking a doom and gloom approach is the answer?
I certainly agree with the naysayers that money was not well spent in some areas, but it has been spent. Let's try now to turn that negative into a positive. If people around the world see our city as a place not to come to because of the protests and the red tents and god knows what, do you really think that's a positive move? If Vancouver's reputation as a city to live in is tarnished, that will have a lot bigger long-term negative impact than any budget shortfalls.
I am not in favour of ignoring problems, and problems there are, but to make the problems worse? What does that accomplish? Absolutely nothing.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Hangover
(Aired on January 27, 2010)
I suppose it's probably not cool of me to bring up reality today, on this day of Olympic triumph. The community, and indeed the province and the entire country are all being encouraged to look directly into the light - that burning torch that lights our hopes and dreams.
As for me, I won't be lining up to get that happy pill.
Olympic organizers had hoped that the excitement surrounding the games would have built to a fever pitch by now. In fact, Angus Reid says it's going the other way. More people are having their eyes opened to the negative impact the games will have.
And how can you blame people for being skeptical? The cost of the Olympics has now reached $6-Billion and climbing. That's just public money; it does not include corporate sponsorships. Price Waterhouse Coopers just released a study saying the economic spinoff will be about $1-Billion. And there is nothing to indicate any of that will be felt anywhere but the Lower Mainland. Even Squamish, supposedly in a prime location to cash in, is saying it's not expecting a significant economic benefit.
My math isn't too good, but by my calculations $6-Billion spent minus $1-Billion coming in adds up to a lot of debt for years to come. Billions of dollars that could be going to health, education, social programs, and other secondary considerations for our government.
The party will be huge, but the hangover will be absolutely epic.
Supporters argue that the impact of the games will be more intangible than measurable. But even the spirit of the games is being undermined. While the surface is all rah-rah, musicians performing as part of the games have been told they aren't allowed to say anything remotely derogatory about the event. The lasting legacy of these games won't burn nearly as bright as the torch itself.
It's true, the Olympics will represent a windstorm of activity for B.C. But we all know what a tornado leaves in its path - devastation - and that's exactly what our province has in store.
(Note: I got caught up in traffic behind the torch this morning. Don't get me wrong, it's my own dumb fault for not knowing where the torch was going to be and when. If anyone should know, it should be me. But you can imagine my feelings toward this whole thing now.)
I suppose it's probably not cool of me to bring up reality today, on this day of Olympic triumph. The community, and indeed the province and the entire country are all being encouraged to look directly into the light - that burning torch that lights our hopes and dreams.
As for me, I won't be lining up to get that happy pill.
Olympic organizers had hoped that the excitement surrounding the games would have built to a fever pitch by now. In fact, Angus Reid says it's going the other way. More people are having their eyes opened to the negative impact the games will have.
And how can you blame people for being skeptical? The cost of the Olympics has now reached $6-Billion and climbing. That's just public money; it does not include corporate sponsorships. Price Waterhouse Coopers just released a study saying the economic spinoff will be about $1-Billion. And there is nothing to indicate any of that will be felt anywhere but the Lower Mainland. Even Squamish, supposedly in a prime location to cash in, is saying it's not expecting a significant economic benefit.
My math isn't too good, but by my calculations $6-Billion spent minus $1-Billion coming in adds up to a lot of debt for years to come. Billions of dollars that could be going to health, education, social programs, and other secondary considerations for our government.
The party will be huge, but the hangover will be absolutely epic.
Supporters argue that the impact of the games will be more intangible than measurable. But even the spirit of the games is being undermined. While the surface is all rah-rah, musicians performing as part of the games have been told they aren't allowed to say anything remotely derogatory about the event. The lasting legacy of these games won't burn nearly as bright as the torch itself.
It's true, the Olympics will represent a windstorm of activity for B.C. But we all know what a tornado leaves in its path - devastation - and that's exactly what our province has in store.
(Note: I got caught up in traffic behind the torch this morning. Don't get me wrong, it's my own dumb fault for not knowing where the torch was going to be and when. If anyone should know, it should be me. But you can imagine my feelings toward this whole thing now.)
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Westjet Changes
(Aired on January 25, 2010)
Who would have thought that WestJet, the airline people love to love, would be pulling its Kamloops to Vancouver flights later this spring, on the guise that they were only seasonal to begin with. And who would have thought that Air Canada, the airline people love to hate, would still be the one pulling the load and providing service.
WestJet's announcement is surprising, especially considering that Kamloops is one of the few airports in the country where air traffic has continued to increase. It doesn't make sense, although one can only assume that passenger numbers are such that the airline can't justify the flights. Maybe seat sales between the two competitors had something to do with it, I don't know. But Air Canada will once again have a monopoly on the Vancouver to Kamloops market. What that will do to fares and flights remains to be seen. WestJet says it will bring the Vancouver flights back in the fall to capitalize on the ski season. I guess we'll see.
WestJet will be flying to Edmonton from Kamloops later this spring. It is now telling us that is only a seasonal venture too. It's unfortunate, because many seasoned travellers like to book their holidays well in advance, and it's hard when you don't know if an airline will be flying or not. If I were making reservations for something into the future, I personally would take the more secure option, not knowing if WestJet will be there or not.
While I understand the business case involved here, and let's face it, if the traffic isn't there, you can't make the case for the flights, it still makes me wonder. Reliability of service is important, whether it's airline flights or anything else. WestJet's move flies in the face of all the figures we keep hearing about traffic in and out of Kamloops. It only makes it more difficult for air travellers to get from one place to another. And ultimately, that's bad for the city of Kamloops.
Who would have thought that WestJet, the airline people love to love, would be pulling its Kamloops to Vancouver flights later this spring, on the guise that they were only seasonal to begin with. And who would have thought that Air Canada, the airline people love to hate, would still be the one pulling the load and providing service.
WestJet's announcement is surprising, especially considering that Kamloops is one of the few airports in the country where air traffic has continued to increase. It doesn't make sense, although one can only assume that passenger numbers are such that the airline can't justify the flights. Maybe seat sales between the two competitors had something to do with it, I don't know. But Air Canada will once again have a monopoly on the Vancouver to Kamloops market. What that will do to fares and flights remains to be seen. WestJet says it will bring the Vancouver flights back in the fall to capitalize on the ski season. I guess we'll see.
WestJet will be flying to Edmonton from Kamloops later this spring. It is now telling us that is only a seasonal venture too. It's unfortunate, because many seasoned travellers like to book their holidays well in advance, and it's hard when you don't know if an airline will be flying or not. If I were making reservations for something into the future, I personally would take the more secure option, not knowing if WestJet will be there or not.
While I understand the business case involved here, and let's face it, if the traffic isn't there, you can't make the case for the flights, it still makes me wonder. Reliability of service is important, whether it's airline flights or anything else. WestJet's move flies in the face of all the figures we keep hearing about traffic in and out of Kamloops. It only makes it more difficult for air travellers to get from one place to another. And ultimately, that's bad for the city of Kamloops.
Monday, January 25, 2010
School Realignment Inevitable
(Aired January 22, 2010)
How do you tell parents passionate about their children and their children's education that their arguments are falling on deaf ears? And I don't mean that critically. But the school reconfiguration process has degenerated into an "us versus them" mentality that is really doing no one any good.
Last night, one parent at John Tod accused Arthur Hatton of being a bad school by virtue of its higher failure rate. The parent used those statistics to try and argue Arthur Hatton students should go to John Tod and not the other way around. That's an irrational approach that doesn't hold any water, especially since the Board's plan is to put a brand new school up because the two current schools have declining enrollments and need to be consolidated to continue to provide proper education. How do you tell parents your passionate arguments are fine, but they aren't going to change the fact that the School District needs to make changes, not just to balance their budget, but to do what's best for education in the face of declining enrollment.
While some parents, such as the man who ripped into the School Board for putting the reconfiguration plan forward in the first place, have great intentions, their logic is misguided. I agree with the parent that the provincial funding of education is part of the problem, it's by no means the entire problem. As neighbourhoods change, education changes. And that's just a fact of life. It may mean, in some cases, kids have to walk further to school. It may mean, in the case of programs like French Immersion, that kids have to get driven or take the bus to school. These changes are not exciting, but in some cases they are necessary. That's simply the way things are. For people to expect the status quo will remain forever is just pie in the sky thinking.
The Board has some tough decisions to make. Parents have tough decisions to make. I don't envy either side their task. But change is inevitable, and perhaps the best thing to do is embrace it and find ways to make it work, instead of lamenting it and fighting it. That battle is one that isn't winnable.
How do you tell parents passionate about their children and their children's education that their arguments are falling on deaf ears? And I don't mean that critically. But the school reconfiguration process has degenerated into an "us versus them" mentality that is really doing no one any good.
Last night, one parent at John Tod accused Arthur Hatton of being a bad school by virtue of its higher failure rate. The parent used those statistics to try and argue Arthur Hatton students should go to John Tod and not the other way around. That's an irrational approach that doesn't hold any water, especially since the Board's plan is to put a brand new school up because the two current schools have declining enrollments and need to be consolidated to continue to provide proper education. How do you tell parents your passionate arguments are fine, but they aren't going to change the fact that the School District needs to make changes, not just to balance their budget, but to do what's best for education in the face of declining enrollment.
While some parents, such as the man who ripped into the School Board for putting the reconfiguration plan forward in the first place, have great intentions, their logic is misguided. I agree with the parent that the provincial funding of education is part of the problem, it's by no means the entire problem. As neighbourhoods change, education changes. And that's just a fact of life. It may mean, in some cases, kids have to walk further to school. It may mean, in the case of programs like French Immersion, that kids have to get driven or take the bus to school. These changes are not exciting, but in some cases they are necessary. That's simply the way things are. For people to expect the status quo will remain forever is just pie in the sky thinking.
The Board has some tough decisions to make. Parents have tough decisions to make. I don't envy either side their task. But change is inevitable, and perhaps the best thing to do is embrace it and find ways to make it work, instead of lamenting it and fighting it. That battle is one that isn't winnable.
Penner Should Take Lead on ACC
(Aired January 21, 2010)
I think B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner should get off his duff and take the lead to solve the controversy that's brewing over the proposed gasification plant down on Mission Flats. The Environment Ministry has approved a permit for the plant, with, it would appear, very little assessment of the plant, its technology, and its potential. Kudos to MP Cathy McLeod, who has taken some initiative and done some research and found that the plant received funding from some "arms length" agency called Sustainable Development Technology Canada. She's checked into what legwork was done, and she's got some major concerns. She says an environmental assessment wasn't done because STDC is considered an "arms length" agency, and not a federal agency. I'm not sure why that should have made a difference before approval, but apparently it did. McLeod is taking up the matter with the federal minister, the ministry, and the agency.
Good for her. I'm calling on provincial Environment Minister Barry Penner to get on board too. He needs to call for some public hearings, an environmental assessment, and some full blown investigation into the technology before the plant can proceed any further. The fact that the City expressed opposition should have triggered that right off the bat, but the government, in my view, dropped the ball. They should pick it up. What harm can it do? Let's be transparent about this issue, and do it right. If the proposal stands up, let it go ahead. If not, well, the time to stop it is before it causes any problems. McLeod is concerned about the stacking of the ties, the proximity to the river, as well as the technology itself. I agree there are concerns. Can those ties leach into the river? Has that been looked at? If Domtar doesn't buy some of the energy, who else could be a customer? There are still many questions to answer. We need some answers now.
I think B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner should get off his duff and take the lead to solve the controversy that's brewing over the proposed gasification plant down on Mission Flats. The Environment Ministry has approved a permit for the plant, with, it would appear, very little assessment of the plant, its technology, and its potential. Kudos to MP Cathy McLeod, who has taken some initiative and done some research and found that the plant received funding from some "arms length" agency called Sustainable Development Technology Canada. She's checked into what legwork was done, and she's got some major concerns. She says an environmental assessment wasn't done because STDC is considered an "arms length" agency, and not a federal agency. I'm not sure why that should have made a difference before approval, but apparently it did. McLeod is taking up the matter with the federal minister, the ministry, and the agency.
Good for her. I'm calling on provincial Environment Minister Barry Penner to get on board too. He needs to call for some public hearings, an environmental assessment, and some full blown investigation into the technology before the plant can proceed any further. The fact that the City expressed opposition should have triggered that right off the bat, but the government, in my view, dropped the ball. They should pick it up. What harm can it do? Let's be transparent about this issue, and do it right. If the proposal stands up, let it go ahead. If not, well, the time to stop it is before it causes any problems. McLeod is concerned about the stacking of the ties, the proximity to the river, as well as the technology itself. I agree there are concerns. Can those ties leach into the river? Has that been looked at? If Domtar doesn't buy some of the energy, who else could be a customer? There are still many questions to answer. We need some answers now.
Friday, January 22, 2010
An Emotional Issue
Kim Sigurdson of ACC told CFJC's Tanya Cronin this week that mayor and council decided not to support his gasification project based "on emotion."
In my mind, this proves that Kim Sigurdson has never met Peter Milobar.
In my mind, this proves that Kim Sigurdson has never met Peter Milobar.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
A Good Reason to Visit the Rendezvous Hotel: You Own It!
(Aired January 20, 2010)
I don't think anyone can argue that the province buying up the Rendezvous Hotel on West Victoria is not a positive. That property was a pox on this city for a long time. Now, starting in spring 2011, it will be a place that will offer hope to the most down-and-out in the community.
Some may argue about the location - on an entrance corridor into the city's downtown - but could you honestly think of a better spot? And some may argue that 50 emergency shelter beds replacing the 46 already operating at the Men's Christian Hostel and Emerald House isn't a significant improvement. But as Ken Salter from ASK Wellness said, every single bed counts, and what is really significant here is the transitional housing included.
There is one nagging question I'm left with, though.
Where did the province get the money?
The $832,000 purchase price is not a lot of money for this prime real estate, frankly. It's not peanuts, either. Today, Premier Campbell (a.k.a. Slash Gordon) announced more than 200 layoffs in two separate government ministries, a move that's indicative of how cash-strapped the province claims to be. Local governments have been told not to hold their breath on too many special grants for the next few years. Or think of trustees with the Kamloops-Thompson School District, who had their annual facilities grant cancelled last summer, and seem to be in bigger financial trouble every week.
I don't argue that buying the Rendezvous was a good use of public funds. But what public funds? I thought we were broke!
I don't think anyone can argue that the province buying up the Rendezvous Hotel on West Victoria is not a positive. That property was a pox on this city for a long time. Now, starting in spring 2011, it will be a place that will offer hope to the most down-and-out in the community.
Some may argue about the location - on an entrance corridor into the city's downtown - but could you honestly think of a better spot? And some may argue that 50 emergency shelter beds replacing the 46 already operating at the Men's Christian Hostel and Emerald House isn't a significant improvement. But as Ken Salter from ASK Wellness said, every single bed counts, and what is really significant here is the transitional housing included.
There is one nagging question I'm left with, though.
Where did the province get the money?
The $832,000 purchase price is not a lot of money for this prime real estate, frankly. It's not peanuts, either. Today, Premier Campbell (a.k.a. Slash Gordon) announced more than 200 layoffs in two separate government ministries, a move that's indicative of how cash-strapped the province claims to be. Local governments have been told not to hold their breath on too many special grants for the next few years. Or think of trustees with the Kamloops-Thompson School District, who had their annual facilities grant cancelled last summer, and seem to be in bigger financial trouble every week.
I don't argue that buying the Rendezvous was a good use of public funds. But what public funds? I thought we were broke!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Religious Persecution
(Aired January 18, 2010)
Religious persecution is not something that is new in our history. Centuries of persecution is easily documented and well proven. But recent incidents in Iran have shown us that it doesn't show any signs of going away. Seven members of the Baha'i faith are on trial on a variety of charges, most of which appear to be largely trumped up as part of a persecution against a faith that has some fundamental differences with the Muslim faith. The Iranian media have accused the Baha'is of causing civil unrest. At least one of the charges is a capital offence. But in reality, it would appear that the government is more interested in trying to suppress the faith and using the civil charges to do that. The Baha'i faith is one of the most peaceable faiths I know. But it has some fundamental differences with other religions. That's not surprising. Many faiths differ from others. But some of those differences conflict with Muslim beliefs, so in countries like Iran, the faith has been under persecution for some time. Since the faith was founded in 1844, tens of thousands of Baha'is have been massacred. The persecution stopped for a time under the former Shah of Iran, but since the revolution in the late 70's, life for many Baha'is in Iran has been intolerable. Members have been fired, their pensions confiscated, many have been prevented from going to University and owning property. Canada has, in the past, been one of the major defenders of the Baha'i faith, and there are reports the government is working behind the scenes to help the seven currently being charged. Whether they can make a difference is hard to say. One thing for sure, these five men and seven women will almost certainly face long prison terms, if not death, unless some foreign country can help pave the way for their freedom. History has shown that much persecution has taken place in the name of God, or one of His many derivatives. This appears to be just the latest example in a long history of using God to achieve a more political and secular end.
Religious persecution is not something that is new in our history. Centuries of persecution is easily documented and well proven. But recent incidents in Iran have shown us that it doesn't show any signs of going away. Seven members of the Baha'i faith are on trial on a variety of charges, most of which appear to be largely trumped up as part of a persecution against a faith that has some fundamental differences with the Muslim faith. The Iranian media have accused the Baha'is of causing civil unrest. At least one of the charges is a capital offence. But in reality, it would appear that the government is more interested in trying to suppress the faith and using the civil charges to do that. The Baha'i faith is one of the most peaceable faiths I know. But it has some fundamental differences with other religions. That's not surprising. Many faiths differ from others. But some of those differences conflict with Muslim beliefs, so in countries like Iran, the faith has been under persecution for some time. Since the faith was founded in 1844, tens of thousands of Baha'is have been massacred. The persecution stopped for a time under the former Shah of Iran, but since the revolution in the late 70's, life for many Baha'is in Iran has been intolerable. Members have been fired, their pensions confiscated, many have been prevented from going to University and owning property. Canada has, in the past, been one of the major defenders of the Baha'i faith, and there are reports the government is working behind the scenes to help the seven currently being charged. Whether they can make a difference is hard to say. One thing for sure, these five men and seven women will almost certainly face long prison terms, if not death, unless some foreign country can help pave the way for their freedom. History has shown that much persecution has taken place in the name of God, or one of His many derivatives. This appears to be just the latest example in a long history of using God to achieve a more political and secular end.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Free Speech
(Aired January 15, 2010)
I'm all for free speech. But sometimes steps must be taken to protect society that may curtail some of that free speech. I'm not in favour of people being allowed to protest at the Olympics if it creates problems for others to enjoy the activities in Vancouver next month. I don't think it's right for people to create havoc, possibly riots, disrupt traffic and create other problems in the guise of free speech. Sorry, that's not something we should allow.
I also have concerns about the claims by people that it's all right to wear gang colours in bars. You're aware of the tribunal sitting this week in Kamloops which was investigating a claim by a couple upset that the female was allowed to wear a sleeveless top into a bar in Kamloops but the man couldn't. The bar doesn't want to allow it because members of gangs can show off their tattoos, which could create problems. I agree with their concern. I'm certainly concerned that the Saskatchewan government has no plans to appeal a court ruling striking down its ban on wearing gang colours in bars. The ministry doesn't think they'll win. Colours are a little more difficult to deal with than tattoos, because unless there is a particularly-identifiable jacket, or an insignia of some sort, that's a hard one to pinpoint. If I wear a blue jacket into a bar, does that make me a gang member because that's the colour of a certain gang? But tattoos that are very distinctive are a different matter. And all we do by allowing these things to happen in the name of free speech, is create more problems.
The right of free speech is inalienable, and that's what makes us such a great country. But when free speech infringes on other rights, like the right to living safely in my country, without fear of being caught up in some gang war, or some riot created by someone protesting something in society, which right is more worth protecting? It's a question not easily resolved, but when we openly entice the possibility of violence, do we really serve the needs of society? I don't think so.
I'm all for free speech. But sometimes steps must be taken to protect society that may curtail some of that free speech. I'm not in favour of people being allowed to protest at the Olympics if it creates problems for others to enjoy the activities in Vancouver next month. I don't think it's right for people to create havoc, possibly riots, disrupt traffic and create other problems in the guise of free speech. Sorry, that's not something we should allow.
I also have concerns about the claims by people that it's all right to wear gang colours in bars. You're aware of the tribunal sitting this week in Kamloops which was investigating a claim by a couple upset that the female was allowed to wear a sleeveless top into a bar in Kamloops but the man couldn't. The bar doesn't want to allow it because members of gangs can show off their tattoos, which could create problems. I agree with their concern. I'm certainly concerned that the Saskatchewan government has no plans to appeal a court ruling striking down its ban on wearing gang colours in bars. The ministry doesn't think they'll win. Colours are a little more difficult to deal with than tattoos, because unless there is a particularly-identifiable jacket, or an insignia of some sort, that's a hard one to pinpoint. If I wear a blue jacket into a bar, does that make me a gang member because that's the colour of a certain gang? But tattoos that are very distinctive are a different matter. And all we do by allowing these things to happen in the name of free speech, is create more problems.
The right of free speech is inalienable, and that's what makes us such a great country. But when free speech infringes on other rights, like the right to living safely in my country, without fear of being caught up in some gang war, or some riot created by someone protesting something in society, which right is more worth protecting? It's a question not easily resolved, but when we openly entice the possibility of violence, do we really serve the needs of society? I don't think so.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Another Note on Comments
It's probably best that I put this up here before it becomes an issue, so it doesn't look like we're singling anyone out.
If you're going to comment on one of our posts, I'd ask politely that you identify yourself by your name. I won't force the issue; if you comment anonymously or using your chosen internet moniker, and the comment is respectful, the comment will make it on the blog anyway. However, commenting anonymously on blogs like this is a pet peeve of mine.
A related sidebar: What's with Kamloops This Week taking anonymous online comments and publishing them in the print newspaper? Aren't you supposed to identify yourself if you want to be published in the "Letters to the Editor" section?
If you're going to comment on one of our posts, I'd ask politely that you identify yourself by your name. I won't force the issue; if you comment anonymously or using your chosen internet moniker, and the comment is respectful, the comment will make it on the blog anyway. However, commenting anonymously on blogs like this is a pet peeve of mine.
A related sidebar: What's with Kamloops This Week taking anonymous online comments and publishing them in the print newspaper? Aren't you supposed to identify yourself if you want to be published in the "Letters to the Editor" section?
It's Haiti on Line One, God. They Say It's Urgent.
(Aired on January 14, 2010)
This is the most difficult time to believe in God.
Some people believe in a supreme being who pulls the strings of human experience like the manipulator of a marionette. Everything that happens is under God's control; is God's will. For these people, understanding events like this week's in Haiti is next to impossible, because you can't blame them on the existence of evil. (Unless of course you are a moron like Pat Robertson.) It was nature - the world God supposedly created.
My ever-evolving understanding of the divine is a little different. More like someone who built a house and then essentially turned over the keys to us. That doesn't make natural disasters much easier to understand, frankly. The house is booby trapped.
Some people don't believe in a loving supreme being at all, and while the earthquake is strong circumstantial evidence, I'm sure that crowd doesn't feel any better about the world right now.
If a benevolent God exists, His hand wasn't in this. What Haiti experienced Tuesday was the unveiling of another circle of hell, a deeper, more unimaginable degree of suffering in a country whose people already suffer every day. In addition to the tens of thousands who died on Tuesday, scores more will die in the coming weeks and months. The country simply has neither the resources nor the infrastructure to save them. But its in these weeks and months, as the compassionate response pours in from around the world, that we will find out where God really is.
If not, may God - or someone else - help us.
This is the most difficult time to believe in God.
Some people believe in a supreme being who pulls the strings of human experience like the manipulator of a marionette. Everything that happens is under God's control; is God's will. For these people, understanding events like this week's in Haiti is next to impossible, because you can't blame them on the existence of evil. (Unless of course you are a moron like Pat Robertson.) It was nature - the world God supposedly created.
My ever-evolving understanding of the divine is a little different. More like someone who built a house and then essentially turned over the keys to us. That doesn't make natural disasters much easier to understand, frankly. The house is booby trapped.
Some people don't believe in a loving supreme being at all, and while the earthquake is strong circumstantial evidence, I'm sure that crowd doesn't feel any better about the world right now.
If a benevolent God exists, His hand wasn't in this. What Haiti experienced Tuesday was the unveiling of another circle of hell, a deeper, more unimaginable degree of suffering in a country whose people already suffer every day. In addition to the tens of thousands who died on Tuesday, scores more will die in the coming weeks and months. The country simply has neither the resources nor the infrastructure to save them. But its in these weeks and months, as the compassionate response pours in from around the world, that we will find out where God really is.
If not, may God - or someone else - help us.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The City Council Law of Inverse Proportionality
(Aired January 13, 2010)
I'm beginning to think there really is something in the water. City hall can be pretty weird sometimes, but this week's city council meeting brought an extra measure of weirdness.
A retired doctor had to be scolded for shouting from the peanut gallery.
A former mayor - Mel Rothenburger - was essentially shamed out of council chambers because he couldn't get his cell phone to be quiet.
And a former councillor - Grant Robertson - decided the best way to argue about a dog-owner's rights was with a stuffed toy and a handful of fake dog dung.
But the thing that was at the same time weird and all too familiar was what I call the City Council Law of Inverse Proportionality. It goes like this: the more an issue is debated, the less will actually be done about it.
This week, a dog-owner in Aberdeen came to council to complain that his dog had been picked up several times even though the neighbourhood loves it and has no problem with it greeting passers-by. The outcome of this issue was clear to most rational members around the council table - nothing. By-laws are black and white, their enforcement is often fairly unsympathetic, and there will be conflicts between officers and the public. By-law officers can exercise common sense, but their and your definition of common sense often don't jive.
It took an hour and a half to come to this conclusion.
I suppose maybe it was worth it, if the public can learn the lesson that you have to have a pretty darn good reason to get the city to bend on its by-laws. And a wandering dog - no matter how friendly - is not good enough.
I'm beginning to think there really is something in the water. City hall can be pretty weird sometimes, but this week's city council meeting brought an extra measure of weirdness.
A retired doctor had to be scolded for shouting from the peanut gallery.
A former mayor - Mel Rothenburger - was essentially shamed out of council chambers because he couldn't get his cell phone to be quiet.
And a former councillor - Grant Robertson - decided the best way to argue about a dog-owner's rights was with a stuffed toy and a handful of fake dog dung.
But the thing that was at the same time weird and all too familiar was what I call the City Council Law of Inverse Proportionality. It goes like this: the more an issue is debated, the less will actually be done about it.
This week, a dog-owner in Aberdeen came to council to complain that his dog had been picked up several times even though the neighbourhood loves it and has no problem with it greeting passers-by. The outcome of this issue was clear to most rational members around the council table - nothing. By-laws are black and white, their enforcement is often fairly unsympathetic, and there will be conflicts between officers and the public. By-law officers can exercise common sense, but their and your definition of common sense often don't jive.
It took an hour and a half to come to this conclusion.
I suppose maybe it was worth it, if the public can learn the lesson that you have to have a pretty darn good reason to get the city to bend on its by-laws. And a wandering dog - no matter how friendly - is not good enough.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Blazers' Turnstile Keeps Spinning
(Aired January 11, 2010)
So the question today is-did the Kamloops Blazers do enough to prepare for the future. It was pretty obvious last week that the Blazers were going to be looking to the future, and it had to happen. The Blazers had to cut the ties with the old guard, and build for next year and the year after. For those who cover the team closely, it was certainly clear that some of the veterans just didn't have the ability to get the job done when it counted, and didn't know how to win. That creates an attitude of defeat, and any coach will tell you that when that attitude prevails, it gets ingrained into the younger players coming up. Did GM Craig Bonner trade the right players? Did he get enough in return? As the saying goes, only time will tell.
Consistency has been a problem for this hockey club. Too many players just didn't play hard enough every night. And that's a coaching issue. Guy Charron is the 5th coach since the new owners took over 2 and a half years ago. Whose fault is that? I think Craig Bonner is a good GM and I like him a lot. I think he's done what he could. But he certainly is on the spot if the team doesn't get turned around. And so are the team owners. All talk-no walk. That's what I think about the new owners of the team. We rarely see them, even in the off season. They talked about returning to the winning ways. They all show up on the scoreboard prior to the game saying "we want it". Well, they don't want it bad enough I guess, any more than the players seem to. One of the team's promo slug lines is "The Tradition Returns." Well, we haven't seen any sign of a winning tradition so far. I'm disappointed, and I'm certain by the dwindling number of fans many of them aren't happy either. I don't care if the team wins every game, but when I go to a game, I want my team to be competitive. Perhaps giving the younger players a chance to play, and develop a new winning attitude will change what happens on the ice. After all, you can only believe the hype so long. At some point it has to turn into reality.
So the question today is-did the Kamloops Blazers do enough to prepare for the future. It was pretty obvious last week that the Blazers were going to be looking to the future, and it had to happen. The Blazers had to cut the ties with the old guard, and build for next year and the year after. For those who cover the team closely, it was certainly clear that some of the veterans just didn't have the ability to get the job done when it counted, and didn't know how to win. That creates an attitude of defeat, and any coach will tell you that when that attitude prevails, it gets ingrained into the younger players coming up. Did GM Craig Bonner trade the right players? Did he get enough in return? As the saying goes, only time will tell.
Consistency has been a problem for this hockey club. Too many players just didn't play hard enough every night. And that's a coaching issue. Guy Charron is the 5th coach since the new owners took over 2 and a half years ago. Whose fault is that? I think Craig Bonner is a good GM and I like him a lot. I think he's done what he could. But he certainly is on the spot if the team doesn't get turned around. And so are the team owners. All talk-no walk. That's what I think about the new owners of the team. We rarely see them, even in the off season. They talked about returning to the winning ways. They all show up on the scoreboard prior to the game saying "we want it". Well, they don't want it bad enough I guess, any more than the players seem to. One of the team's promo slug lines is "The Tradition Returns." Well, we haven't seen any sign of a winning tradition so far. I'm disappointed, and I'm certain by the dwindling number of fans many of them aren't happy either. I don't care if the team wins every game, but when I go to a game, I want my team to be competitive. Perhaps giving the younger players a chance to play, and develop a new winning attitude will change what happens on the ice. After all, you can only believe the hype so long. At some point it has to turn into reality.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Of Garbage and Industry
(Aired on January 8, 2010)
The communities of Ashcroft and Cache Creek are happy this week. They have an extension to their landfill that could keep the operation open until 2037. All well and good, but of course they need customers, and that's a bit of a problem, considering their major client, in fact their only client, is making plans to dispose of their garbage elsewhere. And as much as I like having jobs in our area, surely we're to the point in our development that we should be looking at alternate technology to disposing of garbage in a landfill. Incinerators are a good option if handled properly. Technology is available that would create virtually no toxins from incineration. It might cost more, but maybe that would start to get the message out to "go green" and try to make some positive changes.
On another environmental topic, I wonder how long it will take before Kamloops gains back its reputation of being a big industrial town and start driving away business that could come here. I remember years ago when the Cancer Clinic was being talked about, some doctors had a major say in driving the project to the Okanagan, because they said they didn't want to come to Kamloops because of its reputation as some sort of big industrial centre. And at that time, we only had the pulp mill. Now we're going to have a gasification plant that burns creosote ties, the mere mention of which scares me half to death, and possibly some sort of biofuels plant on the Reserve. I wouldn't imagine it would take long to get that bad reputation back at this rate. Seems a shame when we've spent so much promoting the great lifestyle here in Kamloops. Doesn't take much to turn that image 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
The communities of Ashcroft and Cache Creek are happy this week. They have an extension to their landfill that could keep the operation open until 2037. All well and good, but of course they need customers, and that's a bit of a problem, considering their major client, in fact their only client, is making plans to dispose of their garbage elsewhere. And as much as I like having jobs in our area, surely we're to the point in our development that we should be looking at alternate technology to disposing of garbage in a landfill. Incinerators are a good option if handled properly. Technology is available that would create virtually no toxins from incineration. It might cost more, but maybe that would start to get the message out to "go green" and try to make some positive changes.
On another environmental topic, I wonder how long it will take before Kamloops gains back its reputation of being a big industrial town and start driving away business that could come here. I remember years ago when the Cancer Clinic was being talked about, some doctors had a major say in driving the project to the Okanagan, because they said they didn't want to come to Kamloops because of its reputation as some sort of big industrial centre. And at that time, we only had the pulp mill. Now we're going to have a gasification plant that burns creosote ties, the mere mention of which scares me half to death, and possibly some sort of biofuels plant on the Reserve. I wouldn't imagine it would take long to get that bad reputation back at this rate. Seems a shame when we've spent so much promoting the great lifestyle here in Kamloops. Doesn't take much to turn that image 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Government Strikes Again
(Aired January 7, 2010)
I guess one should never be surprised at the stupidity of the government. At a time when our military needs to be at its strongest, when it's obvious by Christmas Day activities in the skies that terrorism threats are far from over, it's absolutely outrageous that the Harper government is going to cut military spending by almost 200 million dollars this year. The navy, such as it is, will cut training for its reserve forces this month and reduce infrastructure maintenance and repairs, the air force will scale back non-operational training, cut some flying time, and limit non-essential repairs. The army will trim training and reduce the number of reserve soldiers full time. I appreciate that the government is trying to reduce our deficit, but military spending is not in a position to be cut. Let's just take one small example. Well, a not-so-small example. We have declining ice flows in the Arctic. In fact, the polar ice is almost non-existent. It's turned more to big chunks of what they call "rotten" ice, soft crumbly ice that will allow ships to pass through the ice cap almost at will in years to come. Canada is having a huge problem laying claim to that territory. It will require more and more military strength in that area to protect our sovereignty. We are totally unprepared to do it. We don't have the forces. And now we're talking about cutting 200 million dollars from military spending. Has Stephen Harper lost his mind completely? What kind of government are we running here? We're one of the largest countries in the world and one of the smallest militaries. There are third-world countries that have bigger militaries than we do. If we wish to give up any defence of our country, or abrogate our responsibilities to the world at large, we are certainly going about it the right way.
I guess one should never be surprised at the stupidity of the government. At a time when our military needs to be at its strongest, when it's obvious by Christmas Day activities in the skies that terrorism threats are far from over, it's absolutely outrageous that the Harper government is going to cut military spending by almost 200 million dollars this year. The navy, such as it is, will cut training for its reserve forces this month and reduce infrastructure maintenance and repairs, the air force will scale back non-operational training, cut some flying time, and limit non-essential repairs. The army will trim training and reduce the number of reserve soldiers full time. I appreciate that the government is trying to reduce our deficit, but military spending is not in a position to be cut. Let's just take one small example. Well, a not-so-small example. We have declining ice flows in the Arctic. In fact, the polar ice is almost non-existent. It's turned more to big chunks of what they call "rotten" ice, soft crumbly ice that will allow ships to pass through the ice cap almost at will in years to come. Canada is having a huge problem laying claim to that territory. It will require more and more military strength in that area to protect our sovereignty. We are totally unprepared to do it. We don't have the forces. And now we're talking about cutting 200 million dollars from military spending. Has Stephen Harper lost his mind completely? What kind of government are we running here? We're one of the largest countries in the world and one of the smallest militaries. There are third-world countries that have bigger militaries than we do. If we wish to give up any defence of our country, or abrogate our responsibilities to the world at large, we are certainly going about it the right way.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Default Deception
A note from last night's Three Days Grace show:
The headliner was terrific, as was the opener (illScarlett). The meat in the rock sandwich, though, was starting to turn. Here's my beef with Default.
During the band's first song, I noticed something odd. I could hear backup vocals, but the only person singing on stage was the lead singer. Then, during the second song, I could hear at least two guitar parts, yet there was only one person on stage playing guitar. It continued throughout the show, including several moments where I could clearly hear an acoustic guitar playing and literally no one on stage was playing. What I was hearing through my ears did not match what I was seeing with my eyes.
This wouldn't be an issue for me if I didn't differentiate so starkly between performers and artists. If you are a performer, like Ashlee Simpson for example, and you don't compose your own music or write your own lyrics, I wouldn't really expect you to care about the integrity of your performance. If you are an artist in a band, I would expect that you do actually play the music I am hearing.
If you want to sound like a bigger band than you are, get more dudes in your band. Even if just for the tour.
Weirdest thing I've ever seen.
Another note from last night: Three Days Grace had fire in their stage show. Real, actual fire. Sweet.
The headliner was terrific, as was the opener (illScarlett). The meat in the rock sandwich, though, was starting to turn. Here's my beef with Default.
During the band's first song, I noticed something odd. I could hear backup vocals, but the only person singing on stage was the lead singer. Then, during the second song, I could hear at least two guitar parts, yet there was only one person on stage playing guitar. It continued throughout the show, including several moments where I could clearly hear an acoustic guitar playing and literally no one on stage was playing. What I was hearing through my ears did not match what I was seeing with my eyes.
This wouldn't be an issue for me if I didn't differentiate so starkly between performers and artists. If you are a performer, like Ashlee Simpson for example, and you don't compose your own music or write your own lyrics, I wouldn't really expect you to care about the integrity of your performance. If you are an artist in a band, I would expect that you do actually play the music I am hearing.
If you want to sound like a bigger band than you are, get more dudes in your band. Even if just for the tour.
Weirdest thing I've ever seen.
Another note from last night: Three Days Grace had fire in their stage show. Real, actual fire. Sweet.
So this is the New Year...
(Aired on January 6, 2010)
It's 2010, and a lot of people are hoping that 2009 was just a bad dream. Tiger Woods. Bernie Madoff. Anyone involved with Sedric's Adventure Resort.
But the new year gives us a chance to put it all in the past and resolve to start over. I'm sure you've heard all manner of reasons not to make new year's resolutions. Most of those reasons revolve around the idea that resolutions are futile and no one sticks to them anyway - so why bother making them in the first place?
That's the type of cynicism that would have marked my 2009 attitude. But for 2010, I've resolved to be more optimistic. Everything is already better this year, even the way you say the year - "20-10." You couldn't say "20-9" last year or "20-oh-9." That sounds kind of ridiculous.
One reason that I'm not going to deride people who make new year's resolutions is because, at the very least, it represents an effort - concerted or not - to improve one's life. Too many people don't have any concept of self-improvement, nor do they have any motivation to do so.
So here's another one. I've resolved to act a little more my age, and move forward on the super-information world wide highway or whatever it's called. Doug Collins and I have started a blog, and though I realize blogging is so five minutes ago, we're just not quite ready to tweet, or to bare our lives on Facebook. Onemanskamloops.blogspot.com is where you'll find us. And oh yeah, I'm sure I'll get in shape and all of that stuff too.
It's 2010, and a lot of people are hoping that 2009 was just a bad dream. Tiger Woods. Bernie Madoff. Anyone involved with Sedric's Adventure Resort.
But the new year gives us a chance to put it all in the past and resolve to start over. I'm sure you've heard all manner of reasons not to make new year's resolutions. Most of those reasons revolve around the idea that resolutions are futile and no one sticks to them anyway - so why bother making them in the first place?
That's the type of cynicism that would have marked my 2009 attitude. But for 2010, I've resolved to be more optimistic. Everything is already better this year, even the way you say the year - "20-10." You couldn't say "20-9" last year or "20-oh-9." That sounds kind of ridiculous.
One reason that I'm not going to deride people who make new year's resolutions is because, at the very least, it represents an effort - concerted or not - to improve one's life. Too many people don't have any concept of self-improvement, nor do they have any motivation to do so.
So here's another one. I've resolved to act a little more my age, and move forward on the super-information world wide highway or whatever it's called. Doug Collins and I have started a blog, and though I realize blogging is so five minutes ago, we're just not quite ready to tweet, or to bare our lives on Facebook. Onemanskamloops.blogspot.com is where you'll find us. And oh yeah, I'm sure I'll get in shape and all of that stuff too.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Welcome to the One Man's Opinion Blog!
I know, I know. We're a few steps behind. We should have our own Facebook page. We should be tweeting. We should both have blue teeth. But let's face it - it's not happening.
In this space, Doug and I will endeavour to post the transcripts of our regular CFJC editorial segments. WARNING: Some of these transcripts may appear in all caps. Just imagine us shouting into a camera as you read. In addition to the transcripts, we may take the time to comment on the news of the day, or even provide a counterpoint to our colleague's stated opinion.
A NOTE ABOUT COMMENTS: While we are all for free speech and don't mind being taken to task for what we say, we aren't going to mess around with anything potentially libelous or inflammatory.
Enjoy!
In this space, Doug and I will endeavour to post the transcripts of our regular CFJC editorial segments. WARNING: Some of these transcripts may appear in all caps. Just imagine us shouting into a camera as you read. In addition to the transcripts, we may take the time to comment on the news of the day, or even provide a counterpoint to our colleague's stated opinion.
A NOTE ABOUT COMMENTS: While we are all for free speech and don't mind being taken to task for what we say, we aren't going to mess around with anything potentially libelous or inflammatory.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
