(Aired on June 18, 2010)
The results of the inquiry into Robert Dziekanski's death released today should not be a surprise to anyone. Retired Justice Thomas Braidwood laid the wood to the four RCMP officers involved in the incident. He said they could not reasonably have perceived the Polish man as a threat when they arrived at YVR, and when Dziekanski picked up a stapler. The report also said they weren't justified in using their taser and called the officer's conduct "shameful".
It's not always true, but in this case, the video told the story. We all saw what happened thanks to the cellphone video taken by the bystander. At the time, I'm sure that bystander had no idea the impact of the video he had taken. By the time we all saw the video, we knew that the officers in question had to be taken to task. Some decided to tar the entire RCMP by extension, but I always thought the majority of the blame should lie on the four cowboys who walked into the airport that day. I'd like to think different officers in the same situation would react differently.
The big question does pertain to the entire force, though - what will really change as a result of this whole process? Will there be any safeguards put in place as a result to ensure an incident like this doesn't happen again? We've heard promises surrounding the creation of a civilian body to investigate the RCMP. But that's not enough. And besides changes to RCMP training and policy, there must be changes to the way Vancouver International and other airports deal with confused people who don't speak english. Good customer service is one thing, but in this case, it could have saved a life.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
UFC Spawning Violence? It's Possible
(Aired on June 17, 2010)
Does violence spawn violence? That's often a hotly-debated topic. But sometimes, I do believe some who are prone to violent acts can be triggered by watching violence. I believe when the adrenaline starts to pump, a person can react just about any way humanly possible. That's why I'm against gratuitous violence on television, that's why I believe Ultimate Fighting matches should be banned.
I suppose some might get a high out of watching someone literally kicking and punching someone else's head in. Some may not get affected, but if circumstances were right, I bet someone could easily walk out of a match, walk down the street and crank someone for no reason at all. Don't tell me that people don't react that way to things. They do. Not everyone. But some do. And we have to put those matches under wraps because of the greater good.
Screaming fans yelling for blood does something to unnerve me. It's the same with dog fighting or cock fighting or whatever else someone wants to tell you is really OK and not as violent as you think.
I've never thought of myself as a violent person, in fact, as I grow older, the opposite is more and more true. I boxed a lot as a youngster, and very seldom lost. I took karate too. But as I got older, I began to enjoy it less and less. Now I can very seldom watch a boxing match on TV. And I would never watch an Ultimate Fighting match. It just seems so senseless all of a sudden. When I think of those people fighting those matches, I wonder how many of them will be still alive twenty years from now. I don't want to seem like a prude, but aside from the fighters' health, I worry about the reaction the fights cause in others.
Scientific evidence is somewhat lacking on this issue, but I can't see how one could avoid being swept up in the violence when watching these things. And when the body is pumped, who knows what might happen?
Does violence spawn violence? That's often a hotly-debated topic. But sometimes, I do believe some who are prone to violent acts can be triggered by watching violence. I believe when the adrenaline starts to pump, a person can react just about any way humanly possible. That's why I'm against gratuitous violence on television, that's why I believe Ultimate Fighting matches should be banned.
I suppose some might get a high out of watching someone literally kicking and punching someone else's head in. Some may not get affected, but if circumstances were right, I bet someone could easily walk out of a match, walk down the street and crank someone for no reason at all. Don't tell me that people don't react that way to things. They do. Not everyone. But some do. And we have to put those matches under wraps because of the greater good.
Screaming fans yelling for blood does something to unnerve me. It's the same with dog fighting or cock fighting or whatever else someone wants to tell you is really OK and not as violent as you think.
I've never thought of myself as a violent person, in fact, as I grow older, the opposite is more and more true. I boxed a lot as a youngster, and very seldom lost. I took karate too. But as I got older, I began to enjoy it less and less. Now I can very seldom watch a boxing match on TV. And I would never watch an Ultimate Fighting match. It just seems so senseless all of a sudden. When I think of those people fighting those matches, I wonder how many of them will be still alive twenty years from now. I don't want to seem like a prude, but aside from the fighters' health, I worry about the reaction the fights cause in others.
Scientific evidence is somewhat lacking on this issue, but I can't see how one could avoid being swept up in the violence when watching these things. And when the body is pumped, who knows what might happen?
BP's Payout Fund Completely Irrelevant
(Aired on June 16, 2010)
BP announced today that it will set aside $20-billion to pay the victims of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This announcement, of course, is completely irrelevant.
It means nothing. It wouldn't matter if BP said it will set aside a zillion-kajillion dollars, and it wouldn't matter if the total was $10. BP had earlier said that it will pay for the damages caused by the oil spill. That's the statement the company should be held to. Any attempt to put a dollar value on the damages at this stage of the game is completely ridiculous. The company hasn't even stopped the flow of oil into the gulf yet, so it has no idea how much just that action will cost. To say then that they will set aside $20-billion for the victims is completely premature. No one knows ultimately how much damage this will cause and how many victims the spill will claim.
BP's Chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, also issued an apology today for what it calls a "tragic accident" - an apology that is likely meant to head off any court proceedings. Once again, Svanberg apologized to the American people, but this may amount to being a disaster that impacts the entire hemisphere, not just one country.
There is no room for middle ground here. This company has to be held to account completely for what has happened.
The number that BP has come up with - $20-billion - has clearly been pulled completely out of thin air, and must be an attempt by the company to put a cap on how much it will pay out. We now how successful BP is at putting caps on things that are out of control. The company won't have any more success with this cap.BP announced today that it will set aside $20-billion to pay the victims of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This announcement, of course, is completely irrelevant.
It means nothing. It wouldn't matter if BP said it will set aside a zillion-kajillion dollars, and it wouldn't matter if the total was $10.
BP had earlier said that it will pay for the damages caused by the oil spill. That's the statement the company should be held to. Any attempt to put a dollar value on the damages at this stage of the game is completely ridiculous. The company hasn't even stopped the flow of oil into the gulf yet, so it has no idea how much just that action will cost. To say then that they will set aside $20-billion for the victims is completely premature. No one knows ultimately how much damage this will cause and how many victims the spill will claim.
BP's Chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, also issued an apology today for what it calls a "tragic accident" - an apology that is likely meant to head off any court proceedings. Once again, Svanberg apologized to the American people, but this may amount to being a disaster that impacts the entire hemisphere, not just one country.
There is no room for middle ground here. This company has to be held to account completely for what has happened.
The number that BP has come up with - $20-billion - has clearly been pulled completely out of thin air, and must be an attempt by the company to put a cap on how much it will pay out. We now how successful BP is at putting caps on things that are out of control. The company won't have any more success with this cap.
BP announced today that it will set aside $20-billion to pay the victims of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This announcement, of course, is completely irrelevant.
It means nothing. It wouldn't matter if BP said it will set aside a zillion-kajillion dollars, and it wouldn't matter if the total was $10. BP had earlier said that it will pay for the damages caused by the oil spill. That's the statement the company should be held to. Any attempt to put a dollar value on the damages at this stage of the game is completely ridiculous. The company hasn't even stopped the flow of oil into the gulf yet, so it has no idea how much just that action will cost. To say then that they will set aside $20-billion for the victims is completely premature. No one knows ultimately how much damage this will cause and how many victims the spill will claim.
BP's Chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, also issued an apology today for what it calls a "tragic accident" - an apology that is likely meant to head off any court proceedings. Once again, Svanberg apologized to the American people, but this may amount to being a disaster that impacts the entire hemisphere, not just one country.
There is no room for middle ground here. This company has to be held to account completely for what has happened.
The number that BP has come up with - $20-billion - has clearly been pulled completely out of thin air, and must be an attempt by the company to put a cap on how much it will pay out. We now how successful BP is at putting caps on things that are out of control. The company won't have any more success with this cap.BP announced today that it will set aside $20-billion to pay the victims of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This announcement, of course, is completely irrelevant.
It means nothing. It wouldn't matter if BP said it will set aside a zillion-kajillion dollars, and it wouldn't matter if the total was $10.
BP had earlier said that it will pay for the damages caused by the oil spill. That's the statement the company should be held to. Any attempt to put a dollar value on the damages at this stage of the game is completely ridiculous. The company hasn't even stopped the flow of oil into the gulf yet, so it has no idea how much just that action will cost. To say then that they will set aside $20-billion for the victims is completely premature. No one knows ultimately how much damage this will cause and how many victims the spill will claim.
BP's Chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, also issued an apology today for what it calls a "tragic accident" - an apology that is likely meant to head off any court proceedings. Once again, Svanberg apologized to the American people, but this may amount to being a disaster that impacts the entire hemisphere, not just one country.
There is no room for middle ground here. This company has to be held to account completely for what has happened.
The number that BP has come up with - $20-billion - has clearly been pulled completely out of thin air, and must be an attempt by the company to put a cap on how much it will pay out. We now how successful BP is at putting caps on things that are out of control. The company won't have any more success with this cap.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Master Plan May Not Have Prevented Monday Accident
(Aired on June 15, 2010)
An incident yesterday afternoon near Aberdeen Mall is already being used as a sounding board by groups wanting changes to bicycle routes in Kamloops. And I say "put aside the politics" until at least we know what happened.
A 57 year old Kamloops man was riding down Hillside Drive yesterday, when he collided with a transit bus making a left turn from Aberdeen Mall onto Hillside. Already those with political agendas are suggesting that such accidents require the City to make its bicycle plan a reality. One advocate says it's sad that we have to have a situation like this to draw attention to the lack of bike facilities in the city. I say that's trying to take advantage of a terrible accident to make a case for something that may or may not have resolved the problem.
I'm not going to talk about the Aberdeen accident yesterday in any detail, because no one knows what happened exactly. I will say that bike riders often come down that road way too quickly, as they do Columbia Street, Summit Drive and many other hills in the city. I will say that the interchange where the accident occurred is a bad one. It's one of several places in a block and a half where people have to make turns across two lanes of traffic, sometimes into glaring sunlight, and it's a wonder more accidents don't happen. I'm not suggesting for a moment that bicyclists shouldn't have a safe route to the downtown, something the master bike plan is designed to do. But there have to be other considerations too.
A safe bike route doesn't guarantee that people will always use it. Bike riders aren't always cautious. Their machines aren't equipped to stop on a dime, and if a motorist doesn't see them, they can't slow down quickly enough to avoid a collision. They often don't obey the rules of the road.
Let's push for the master bike plan, but let's not use a sad situation that resulted from an accident that may have been hard to prevent as some kind of leverage, when in fact the bike plan may not have had any impact on the situation anyway. I hate it when people do that.
An incident yesterday afternoon near Aberdeen Mall is already being used as a sounding board by groups wanting changes to bicycle routes in Kamloops. And I say "put aside the politics" until at least we know what happened.
A 57 year old Kamloops man was riding down Hillside Drive yesterday, when he collided with a transit bus making a left turn from Aberdeen Mall onto Hillside. Already those with political agendas are suggesting that such accidents require the City to make its bicycle plan a reality. One advocate says it's sad that we have to have a situation like this to draw attention to the lack of bike facilities in the city. I say that's trying to take advantage of a terrible accident to make a case for something that may or may not have resolved the problem.
I'm not going to talk about the Aberdeen accident yesterday in any detail, because no one knows what happened exactly. I will say that bike riders often come down that road way too quickly, as they do Columbia Street, Summit Drive and many other hills in the city. I will say that the interchange where the accident occurred is a bad one. It's one of several places in a block and a half where people have to make turns across two lanes of traffic, sometimes into glaring sunlight, and it's a wonder more accidents don't happen. I'm not suggesting for a moment that bicyclists shouldn't have a safe route to the downtown, something the master bike plan is designed to do. But there have to be other considerations too.
A safe bike route doesn't guarantee that people will always use it. Bike riders aren't always cautious. Their machines aren't equipped to stop on a dime, and if a motorist doesn't see them, they can't slow down quickly enough to avoid a collision. They often don't obey the rules of the road.
Let's push for the master bike plan, but let's not use a sad situation that resulted from an accident that may have been hard to prevent as some kind of leverage, when in fact the bike plan may not have had any impact on the situation anyway. I hate it when people do that.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
New Sun Peaks Council Has Big Challenge Ahead
(Aired on June 14, 2010)
Sun Peaks residents voted themselves a new council on the weekend, and starting later this month, they will move forward on the long process of putting a community together. It's a tough process. They have to put bylaws in place, they have to determine how they will deal with policing issues, fire issues and other public safety issues. They have to deal with the issue of noisy renters, an issue that could really threaten the new community if it isn't handled properly. Right now, the community couldn't handle any enforcement even if they wanted to. They have to put proper taxation structures in place, they have to ensure that they have a community plan. They have to hire an administrative officer. They have to have offices. The list is endless.
In many ways, it's a neat challenge and a great opportunity. To be in on the ground floor. But can be daunting too. Residents of the community will find that things won't be just status quo. Because they are now the masters of their own fate, they have some control of what happens, more so than if decisions were made by someone like the Regional District. But it also means they have to be accountable, and if they want services, they will have to pay for them.
While the new mayor is anxious not to increase taxes, that doesn't normally happen in new municipalities. The new council has community history and community involvement. They have examples nearby like Clearwater and Barriere, from whom they can probably get some good advice on what pitfalls to avoid in establishing their new community.
A resort municipality is not the same as a normal community. Many of the issues are unique, and must be dealt with differently than they would if we were talking about Kamloops or Ashcroft. One of the biggest challenges is to ensure that the needs of a resort area also mesh with those of the general population. I believe Al Raine and his council will be up to the challenge. But they will have to communicate frequently with the community to ensure they keep everyone up to date on everything they're doing, to ensure that they get things off to a good, positive start. If they do that, they will be well on their way.
Sun Peaks residents voted themselves a new council on the weekend, and starting later this month, they will move forward on the long process of putting a community together. It's a tough process. They have to put bylaws in place, they have to determine how they will deal with policing issues, fire issues and other public safety issues. They have to deal with the issue of noisy renters, an issue that could really threaten the new community if it isn't handled properly. Right now, the community couldn't handle any enforcement even if they wanted to. They have to put proper taxation structures in place, they have to ensure that they have a community plan. They have to hire an administrative officer. They have to have offices. The list is endless.
In many ways, it's a neat challenge and a great opportunity. To be in on the ground floor. But can be daunting too. Residents of the community will find that things won't be just status quo. Because they are now the masters of their own fate, they have some control of what happens, more so than if decisions were made by someone like the Regional District. But it also means they have to be accountable, and if they want services, they will have to pay for them.
While the new mayor is anxious not to increase taxes, that doesn't normally happen in new municipalities. The new council has community history and community involvement. They have examples nearby like Clearwater and Barriere, from whom they can probably get some good advice on what pitfalls to avoid in establishing their new community.
A resort municipality is not the same as a normal community. Many of the issues are unique, and must be dealt with differently than they would if we were talking about Kamloops or Ashcroft. One of the biggest challenges is to ensure that the needs of a resort area also mesh with those of the general population. I believe Al Raine and his council will be up to the challenge. But they will have to communicate frequently with the community to ensure they keep everyone up to date on everything they're doing, to ensure that they get things off to a good, positive start. If they do that, they will be well on their way.
Feel Free to Make Good Use of My Taxes
(Aired on June 10, 2010)
They call it "Tax Freedom Day." Every year, the Fraser Institute determines which day of the year the average Canadian has earned enough money to pay for all the taxes they will be charged that year. This year, tax freedom day was last Saturday. So everything you earn from Saturday on out is pure profit, baby. That's almost seven whole months that the money you work hard for is actually yours.
Taxes really aren't a bad thing - unless of course you would enjoy paying a user fee for every road you drive on, every park you walk through, or every doctor's visit you make. Or maybe the people who ensure our air is clean to breathe and our water is clean to drink should work for free. If that's not what you think, then taxes are okay.
But as much as the Fraser Institute gets my goat from time to time, this particular initiative makes a good point. We spend almost half of our lives working for the government. Hopefully, by extension, the government is working to improve the lives of everyone. Our MP Cathy McLeod boasts that Tax Freedom Day has moved earlier in the year since the Conservatives took power. What she doesn't mention is what her government is doing with the money that is being collected those first five months of the year. I still haven't heard a plausible explanation of why it will take over $1-Billion to host a handful of world leaders at the upcoming G8 and G20 summits. I literally cannot fathom what could cost that much money, short of replacing the bathrooms with gold-plated diapers for all.
If the Conservatives want to crow about how little they're charging us in taxes, they have to be putting the taxes they do collect to good use. Tax Freedom Day could be January 2, and if they were wasting the money they made, they'd still have no reason to brag.
They call it "Tax Freedom Day." Every year, the Fraser Institute determines which day of the year the average Canadian has earned enough money to pay for all the taxes they will be charged that year. This year, tax freedom day was last Saturday. So everything you earn from Saturday on out is pure profit, baby. That's almost seven whole months that the money you work hard for is actually yours.
Taxes really aren't a bad thing - unless of course you would enjoy paying a user fee for every road you drive on, every park you walk through, or every doctor's visit you make. Or maybe the people who ensure our air is clean to breathe and our water is clean to drink should work for free. If that's not what you think, then taxes are okay.
But as much as the Fraser Institute gets my goat from time to time, this particular initiative makes a good point. We spend almost half of our lives working for the government. Hopefully, by extension, the government is working to improve the lives of everyone. Our MP Cathy McLeod boasts that Tax Freedom Day has moved earlier in the year since the Conservatives took power. What she doesn't mention is what her government is doing with the money that is being collected those first five months of the year. I still haven't heard a plausible explanation of why it will take over $1-Billion to host a handful of world leaders at the upcoming G8 and G20 summits. I literally cannot fathom what could cost that much money, short of replacing the bathrooms with gold-plated diapers for all.
If the Conservatives want to crow about how little they're charging us in taxes, they have to be putting the taxes they do collect to good use. Tax Freedom Day could be January 2, and if they were wasting the money they made, they'd still have no reason to brag.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Coalition? Please no.
(Aired on June 9, 2010)
Every time I hear about a the possibility of a coalition government, I cringe a little bit. Thankfully, Michael Ignatieff today shot down suggestions of a coalition between his Liberals and the federal NDP to take down the Harper Conservatives. I'm not thrilled with the job the Conservative government is doing in Ottawa right now - not thrilled, but not absolutely irate to the core of my being either. It's only once I get that upset that I would even consider a coalition a decent option to throw the Conservatives to the other side of the Commons floor.
When Canadians went to the polls, those who voted for the Liberals did not vote for the NDP, and vice versa. They didn't even vote for an option that says "not the Conservatives," even though I suspect that option would be quite popular. Instead, they voted their individual preference, and we are left with the Conservatives leading parliament in a minority government situation.
If there was widespread outrage at the Conservatives, there may be a more realistic mandate to form a coalition. But opinion polls continue to show Harper's party with a healthy lead over any other party in public support. Once again, "not the Conservatives" is not an option.
Finally, the NDP and the Liberals are often on far extremes of the political spectrum - usually even farther apart than the Liberals and the governing Tories. They say politics make strange bedfellows, but a coalition between the NDP and the Liberals would be like sleeping with the enemy.
Every time I hear about a the possibility of a coalition government, I cringe a little bit. Thankfully, Michael Ignatieff today shot down suggestions of a coalition between his Liberals and the federal NDP to take down the Harper Conservatives. I'm not thrilled with the job the Conservative government is doing in Ottawa right now - not thrilled, but not absolutely irate to the core of my being either. It's only once I get that upset that I would even consider a coalition a decent option to throw the Conservatives to the other side of the Commons floor.
When Canadians went to the polls, those who voted for the Liberals did not vote for the NDP, and vice versa. They didn't even vote for an option that says "not the Conservatives," even though I suspect that option would be quite popular. Instead, they voted their individual preference, and we are left with the Conservatives leading parliament in a minority government situation.
If there was widespread outrage at the Conservatives, there may be a more realistic mandate to form a coalition. But opinion polls continue to show Harper's party with a healthy lead over any other party in public support. Once again, "not the Conservatives" is not an option.
Finally, the NDP and the Liberals are often on far extremes of the political spectrum - usually even farther apart than the Liberals and the governing Tories. They say politics make strange bedfellows, but a coalition between the NDP and the Liberals would be like sleeping with the enemy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
