Sad/Exasperated

Maybe it's because I have a stupid head cold, but today's news made me chuckle with ridicule and shake my head.

Observe:

Headline: Alberta wants in on climate negotiations with U.S. (Premier says Alberta should have a seat at the table when Ottawa negotiates a deal with the United States)
Reaction: You and your oil sands are not more important than Canada or the welfare of the planet! Who do you think you are? Quebec??

Headline: No more free rides, Dion warns Harper (Liberal Leader says his MPs will vote based on merits of legislation, even if it means another election)
Reaction: This coming from the outgoing leader who won't have to suffer the consequences. And by the way, you want to force an election when you have no leader?

Headline: Ottawa will look into infrastructure fund delays: Baird
Reaction: *groan* How many more years of Baird do we have to endure?

Headline: Harper may run budget deficit
Reaction: He squanders the amazing budget that was handed to him when he was elected and promised to not run a deficit if he were re-elected this year. He can blame it on the economy, but the reason Paul Martin, as Finance Minister, padded in a surplus was for exactly this kind of situation.

So it goes.

The Election: Loving & Loathing Gilles

I am extremely disappointed that during the Canadian Federal election campaign I am on near constant travel status and have not been able to keep myself saturated in political news - which is my preferred state.

I did manage to watch the Leader's Debate on CBC last night and, politics aside, I was delighted to see five candidates being animated and unruly in the tradition of Canadian politics. It was a beautiful and stunning contrast to the US Presidential "debate" I saw a couple of weeks ago. What's up with the whole two party thing?

I won't get into a breakdown of the debate, or who I think should be supported, but I will say this; I wish Gilles Duceppe was not a Bloc separatist because every time I see him orate, I wish I could vote for him. Gilles, in both official languages, is witty, engaging, charismatic, intelligent, and kind of feisty...but not in that smarmy way that Jack Layton is. If only Gilles believed in a complete and equal Canada and ran candidates in every province!

Just when I've come to terms with having only four candidates to pick from I am reminded again, in an article, the kind of things that Gilles says to remind me of my unattainable desire to vote for him.

"In Toronto, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe launched an attack against Harper.

"It is very dangerous when a prime minister makes his decisions through an ideological prism instead of a pragmatic one," Duceppe said in a speech to the Toronto Economic Club, a Bay Street audience.

Duceppe accepted the group's invitation despite the fact his separatist party only runs candidates in Quebec."

Elegant, subtle, concise, intelligent, and biting. Plus, I agree with him. I long for a realistic candidate for Prime Minister who speaks like that.

Made In Canada FCC?

Edit: Feb. 29/08 14:26 PST

And there you have it. The amendment to Bill C-10 that is covered below was lobbied for by the hateful, divisive religious group Canada Family Action Coalition. "The Canada Family Action Coalition is an evangelical group that seeks to have what it calls "Judeo-Christian moral principles" restored in Canada." And the president of the group is, of course, one of those guys who condemns films without watching them. But I believe this allows me to rest my case when it comes to; the Conservatives trying to be more American, the suspicion that religious doctrine may be used to vet art, and that censorship of non-conservative views is the goal...not "public interest"...whatever that is to Harper.

Original post------

The Conservatives have, in the style of America, hid an amendment inside the large Bill C-10 that was already passed in the House of Commons. This amendment would give the federal Heritage Department the power to deny funding for films and TV shows it considers offensive even if federal agencies such as Telefilm and the Canadian Television Fund have invested in the production. Representatives from the Heritage and Justice departments would determine which productions are unsuitable and therefore ineligible for tax cuts.

David Cronenberg, the Canadian director behind the critically acclaimed Eastern Promises, said the proposed plan doesn't belong in Canada.

"It sounds like something they do in Beijing," he told CBC News. "You have a panel of people working behind closed doors who are not monitored and they form their own layer of censorship."

Cronenberg says Canadians have a reputation for making edgy dark movies that go places other filmmakers wouldn't venture.

This new panel could quash that kind of creativity, he said.

Stephen Waddell, national executive director of the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, the actors union, said it seems the government wants to set up a form of "morality police."

"The government is overstepping its bounds and interfering in an arms-length process," Waddell said in a statement released Thursday. "Withholding public funding for film and television productions it deems offensive is a dangerous direction for this government that smacks of censorship."

Waddell said he wonders whether the standards to be applied would be representative of a modern Canadian society or what he calls a "fundamentalist perspective" borrowed from the United States.

Every little step this Harper government takes towards emulating their hero, Prez Bush, makes me increasingly nervous because the Liberals can't get their act together to be a credible opposition so this whole damn country might end up as America-lite if we're not careful. The response from the government was this:

Annette Gibbons, associate director general at Heritage Canada, said the changes are only slight alterations to current guidelines.

"It's our responsibility to ensure that public funds are not invested in certain types of material, such as hate propaganda, excessively violent material, or pornography," she said.

And who said that this government department is at all an authority on these issues? By what measure are they making their decisions? Which religious yardstick can we expect them to apply? How are they even defining the parameters of those categories? How slight can the alterations be if they require an amendment to a Bill and the Income Tax Act?

Does this inching towards censorship make anyone else nervous? I thought that in Canada we were educated enough to interpret and assign value to what we see and hear without the government deciding in advance for us.

On Climate Inaction

I have a question to put forth.

The anti-climate change/anti-Kyoto folks' argument always centres around their skepticism that humans are responsible for the environmental issues that are coming to a head. eg. "The lobby group was formed several years ago to protest Canada's legally binding commitments in the international Kyoto agreement on climate change and cast doubt about research linking human activity to global warming."

These arguments persist and are eaten up by the tragically uniformed despite the following:

"The overwhelming majority of scientists that study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, comprised of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as well as those of China, India and Brazil. The Royal Society of Canada – together with the national academies of fifteen other nations – also issued a joint statement on climate change that stated, in part: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognize IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change."

I think we can agree that humans have contributed something to the issue (think Greenhouse Effect) even if we can't all agree that we are primarily responsible (think Earth's natural cycles of hot & cold).

BUT,

I posit,

Does it matter who or what caused/is causing the problem?

AND, even if there was no evidence of climate change, would we not still want to commit to reducing our pollution output levels? Does it matter if every single country in the world is committing to action?

The range of historical tragedies, from genocide to colonialism to the restriction of human rights, were/are supposed to teach us to think as a global unified species and that positive action, no matter how small, makes a difference and starts to avalanche into more and better action. It is also a tenet we attempt to teach the young though we refuse to model the behaviour.

It seems to me that all the bickering going on about who is at fault for melting ice caps or the childish attitude of we-won't-do-anything-unless-China etc.-does-too is completely irrelevant to just doing something about the wellness of Earth and its inhabitants.

Spending so much time and energy closely examining the relationship between Industry and Climate restricts our view of the Big Picture: the planet is under siege, species are rapidly becoming extinct, air/water/land pollution is out of control, and the health of living things is under attack.

I decided to take a quick search about and found a video that takes a similar but radically different approach to the argument. In his awesome video How It All Ends, science dude Greg Craven demonstrates that deciding to act or not on Climate Change is completely disconnected from whether or not you believe in the phenomenon. I've embedded the video below, and although it's educational, it is entertaining...a low budget Bill Nye The Science Guy if you will. In all seriousness it's a compelling argument about risk and I'm glad I saw it so I hope you will also watch it. And think hard on it too. Thank you.

Hypocrisy Shout Out...Again

Maybe I should just number these and post as I find. So let's call this one Hypocrisy Shout Out #2...

As you may have already heard, there is a damaged American spy satellite heading towards Earth. It is believed that it will impact in early March and the thinking heads down South have been deciding what to do about it; let it crash land? shoot it out of the sky?

"President George W. Bush, acting on advice of security officials, has decided to try to shoot down the satellite before it enters Earth's atmosphere."

Sounds reasonable. But reading on...

"Last year, China drew criticism from a host of countries, including the U.S., after it used a missile to shoot down an old weather satellite about 865 kilometres above the Earth. The move was widely viewed as one that could lead to the increasing militarization of space."

Ah. There's the hypocrisy. I knew we'd find it if we persevered through the entire article. America can do whatever the frak they want, even if they deride it in the first place. Is it to protect their secret imaging sensor on board? That's what the White House says, but what does the military say?

"Joint Chiefs of Staff vice-chairman Gen. James Cartwright denied that, saying classified technology is not an issue because the heating that would occur on re-entry would destroy any technology and "would not justify using a missile to shoot it down." "

And does anyone really believe that America is against the militarization of space? Isn't it more likely that they're against the militarization of space by anybody other than themselves? Seems like they're just jealous that they didn't already get to shoot missiles into space; "It will be the first time the U.S. has ever attempted to shoot a spacecraft down with a surface-to-air missile, Cartwright said."

Serious Discussion

I can't believe that I just read an entire article, covering several laws, energy conservation legislation, comments from the World Wildlife Fund and Ontario's Energy Minister that is all about ending a ban on clotheslines.

Yes, clotheslines.

"Peter Love said clothesline bans were passed at a time when priorities were different, and the time has come for people to "have the right to dry their clothes outside.""

For some unknown archaic reason, having clotheslines out to dry laundry is currently illegal in many areas of Ontario. There seems to be entirely too much discussion, consultation, sound and fury, and expounding experts for such a simple and rather unimportant issue. Should we allow clotheslines? Consumer's can save up to $30 a year in energy bills if they hang 25% of their laundry outside! "Before clotheslines can become legal, Phillips said the province is asking for public input over the next two months."!

"The Liberals passed an energy conservation leadership law shortly after their election in 2003 that included a clause allowing the province to abolish local bans on clotheslines imposed by residential associations or developers through sale agreements."

This is serious business!

For frak's sake just change the rules! What is the big deal? It's clotheslines! And now I've wasted my (and your) time with even more discussion on clotheslines. Yeesh.

"The province is asking the public for input on how best to end the clothesline bans through a 60-day posting on Ontario's Environmental Registry."

My suggestion? Just end the ban. Plain and simple. Much like a clothesline.

Hypocrisy Shout Out

I like how the States gets off on telling other countries that they can't do what the US does because they're not "good" or "God's favoured people" or "blind believers in American Democracy" or whatever.

You can't have nuclear weapons! Why do we have them? Oh, because we can be trusted, and you can't.

We always support the rule of law! Unless of course, we don't like your law.

Talking about removing the President of the US is treason! We only remove leaders of countries we like to bully.


Now, I'm upset as any human should be about what President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is doing in Pakistan. Today I wondered if I would risk what would be risked to go and help the protesters if I lived closer to their country. But I'm still going to jump on a comment like this:

"You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time," Bush said Wednesday, describing to reporters his phone conversation with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Hold the phone.

From Wikipedia on the Presdient of the United Stats of America:

"Perhaps the most important of all presidential powers is command of the armed forces as commander-in-chief.

...To carry out this duty, he is given control of the four million employees of the vast executive branch, including one million active duty personnel in the military.

...While the power to declare war is constitutionally vested in Congress, the president commands and directs the military and is responsible for planning military strategy.

Sure we can, but Pakistan? No, they can't do that. Obviously.

Why Doesn't Vancouver Exist?

I've shown examples of it before, but here we go again.

I just read this article about the exceptional statistic that there have been no murders committed in Quebec City in almost a year. At the bottom of the page there is a list of Canadian cities and their murder rates over the past two years. Do you notice any conspicuous omissions?

MURDERS IN 2006 / TO DATE THIS YEAR / POPULATION SIZES

Toronto 99 70 2,503,281

Montreal 52 35 1,620,693

Edmonton 39 23 730,372

Calgary 26 26 988,193

Winnipeg 22 23 633,451

Ottawa 16 10 812,129

Saskatoon 8 5 202,340

Windsor 3 3 216,473

Quebec City 7 0 491,142

Regina 8 5 179,246

Sure, Saskatoon and Windsor get shout outs, but one of the largest cities in the country is ignored. Further evidence that when people look West they just can't see past Alberta.

Recall Everything

Starbucks is recalling children's mugs that were made in China, further spurring the panic that all products from that country are dangerous.

These nefarious plastic mugs have animal faces glued to them, and "if the cup is dropped, it's possible for the face to break off and leave sharp edges that can choke or cut children."

The recall is because if you drop the cup it might break.

Now I'm pretty sure there are lots of items around my house that if I dropped, might break, and then be dangerous to babies who want to eat pieces of glass. I'm also certain it doesn't make everything that is breakable a dangerous made-in-China defect.

Winnipeg is West, Vancouver is What?

As evidenced in policy, action, and opinion, when those in the East look to the West they can't seem to see beyond Alberta.

And now they're seriously talking about Winnipeg as one of the cities in the West and conveniently leaving Vancouver off the list?

This is from an article about Canada having the lowest crime rate in 25 years.

"Higher crime rates are more the trend in large western cities, such as Winnipeg, Regina and Saskatoon, Melcher said."

True, it seems as though they might be saying that Vancouver doesn't have the same "higher crime rates" - not only is that not true, but the chart in the article shows that BC and Saskatchewan moved about the same on the crime scale between 2005 and 2006. So you can see why it appears once again that Ontario-goggles, providing fog to overshadow the land beyond Calgary, have struck again.

And for the record I have no beef with Manitoba, so if they like being Western, they're welcome in my house...they can take Alberta's place.

Brabe Asks

via e-mail...

"so the gov has made a law about telemarketing and have made the do not call list but they have made a few exceptions:
-Registered charities (calls made by them or on their behalf)
-Political parties
-Calls made for the purpose of public opinion surveys
-Newspapers of general circulation (for subscription solicitation)
-Businesses with whom you have an existing business relationship (e.g. businesses from which you have purchased goods or services within last 18 months)

I think you dont ever get telemarketing calls and i rarely get them, but every one i have ever gotten in my whole life falls into these categories. so tell me, what is the point???"

Spage replies...

You know, one of the MPs who spoke to us in Ottawa was the woman who put forth the private member's bill to institute that very do not call list. She fought hard for it and had a team of public servants helping to hash out the policy. It was modelled after the American version that is currently in effect. She says that after all that (and this was in 2004), it was never made into law. I see that it has finally received royal assent but obviously not in the same form she (and the Commons) sent to the Senate...I wonder what her reaction is today?

You are right, I've never gotten telemarketing calls on my cell, but that will change as I start to use it as my actual public telephone. Of course, I do get unknown callers from time to time and I simply do not answer those calls and they don't leave voice mails so I'm not sure what other kind of solicitation is going on out there. I'd hazard a guess that a lot of credit card companies, competing phone and cable companies, etc. who are not on the exceptions list would be culprits.

To be honest, the only exceptions on that list that irk me are the newspaper and charity ones. But I'm not surprised that they would be on this list either. Newspaper subscription solicitation being permitted is disgusting, why the media barons' unsolicited sales calls should be treated any differently is beyond me. Same goes for the registered charities - they are essentially just doing sales calls too, but we as citizens are supposed to feel that soft spot and respect for all charities no matter what they are trying to accomplish. This is also hogwash.

I have less issue with political parties, public opinion surveys (depending on who administers them ie. StatsCan or miscellaneous BizRate types?), and obviously companies with whom you already do business because you have an existing relationship with them. When it comes to political parties contacting people I think instead of people having a knee-jerk reaction to it, they should realize that this is a prime opportunity to communicate directly with your government or, those trying to be your government, and let your opinions be heard. Hate the political party that called you? Tell them why! Political parties are in the business of representing their constituents and if they don't know what you think and feel how will they know what you want? Love the political party that called you? Tell them why! If you don't they won't know that they're doing anything right! This is along the same reasons that I don't wholly disparage public opinion surveys - I mean, if one called to ask you about your opinion on new legislation, would you think that it would be a good time to voice your discontent over the national do not call registry? These are your opportunities to shape the world you live in without ever leaving the comfort of your ass-indented chesterfield. Have people become so angry and lazy that this is unacceptable? It's not like they're not trying to sell you war bonds or anything!

So what is the point Brabe? Well, it's certainly better than nothing, it starts the ball rolling and can always be updated and amended, it at the very least addresses a major complaint by the public, and it gives me blog fodder - and that's what's really important right?

Why You Need To Question

Question what? Everything.

Why?

Here's an example:

So I read this article about a proposed fare increase for our local transit system - which is obscene considering how expensive it already is and how many times they increase it.

"The planned increases range from 11 to 15 per cent. That would bring adult fares for one, two and three zones to $2.50, $3.75 and $5.00, respectively."

Then it says; "The increases would still leave Vancouver transit riders paying less than commuters in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa."

Now I know that fares in Toronto did not used to be as ludicrous as here and I was sure they still weren't so I took a look at the TTC website (the Toronto Transit Commission or as my friend Edwin says; "It stands for Take The Car.") to check fares and what do you know, as of April 2006 the flat fare for an adult is $2.75. Is that more than $5.00 now? In that case, I'm trading all of my fives in for toonies.

Bolstered, I checked Montreal's STM (Société de transport de Montréal) transit fare site - and there I see that the flat rate is also $2.75.

Ottawa's OC Transpo (Ottawa Carleton Transportation) does charge $3.00 - $5.00 which puts their fares in the same range as our new rates, but is certainly not more.

So this article skews and spins the facts to make it seem like the protesters in Vancouver are being unreasonable even though clearly, we pay much more in transit fares than Toronto and Montrealers do.

And even if the false claim that "the increases would still leave Vancouver transit riders paying less than commuters in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa" were true - what does that have to do with the local feeling that it is too much? I am also not pleased with the subtle way this discourages people from voicing their discontent over fares. It is misleading, dishonest, and generally unfair to the public to be treated this way. It also gives TransLink a carte blanche to be assholes. Yes, I can get this riled up about the misrepresentation of a transit fare. And I wish there were more of us.

Sometimes We Know Stuff

Do you ever find that as a Canadian your contributions to a conversation with Americans (or any others?) are often summarily dismissed? Maybe they think it's too cold up here for our brains to work, or maybe they're only used to hearing exactly one side of things. Perhaps they don't really believe that an average Canadian has a decent base of general knowledge to draw from regarding issues both in and outside of our borders.

This is what would be called a frivolous example of what I mean...

On the Dave + Tim European Tour earlier this year, Dave started playing a particular song as an intro to Don't Drink The Water. We (a handful of Americans and myself) didn't know what it was called or where it came from (though we sure it was a cover). Being overseas and disconnected from the fanosphere found online and stateside we hazarded some ideas but resigned ourselves to waiting for the official word on the mystery song upon our return to North America.

The Americans told me that it had to be a song by a European because it mentions a Caledonia river. Is this because only Europeans can write songs about Scotland? I have no idea, but I let that one slide. I thought (and said out loud) that perhaps it was about a Caledonia in Canada because at the time I was thinking about the ongoing Native blockade/land claim dispute in Caledonia, Ontario. In reply, I received quizzical and bemused looks - the assembled council would not entertain such a ridiculous suggestion. Apparently there is only one Caledonia, I don't know what I'm talking about, and Canada does not inspire song.

Knowing Dave Matthews' penchant for covering (and lauding) Quebecker Daniel Lanois and being aware that the cover song sounded suspiciously like the famed singer-songwriter/producer's style I decided to hold my tongue, wait, and see.

When I got home I checked the definitive Dave Matthews Band resource website, dmbalmanac, and found that the song was indeed written by Daniel Lanois and is called Still Water. Further, I discovered that this song debuted on his first album titled Acadie (French for Acadia), which granted, only covers a section of Canada east of Ontario, but this seems to point away from Scotland...but maybe towards Nova Scotia.

So what does that leave me with? Nothing really. Vindication? Hardly. I'm not going to phone anyone and rub it in long distance style. Self-satisfaction? I guess. *sigh* I just wonder why it is that people assume Canadians have nothing of substance to contribute. Are we really just looked at like we're adorable little colonials who naively gaze upon everything in astonished wonder? It seems no matter what we accomplish (as individuals or as a nation), or how highly we are ranked on world education and standard of living lists, we are still brushed aside. I guess the upside is that as our successes are ignored, so are our failures. But I'd rather seem them both held up to scrutiny, wouldn't you?

Priorities

In a post earlier today, I mentioned that the politicians in Ottawa had thousands of more important things to spend their time on than tweaking electoral laws.

This is not one of them.

A parliamentary committee is going to review whether Shane Doan should remain Captain of Team Canada's hockey team because two years ago he was accused of saying something mean about French-Canadians. It was an accusation that was not substantiated and Doan was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing by the NHL.

Oh yes, this is serious. In a way it's funny how hockey is so important in this country that all the political parties supported the Bloc motion to have Hockey Canada explain it's choice to a parliamentary committee.

On the other hand, the Bloc says nasty things about all non French-Canadians every day and we don't demand that they step out of the country - on the contrary, we try our darnedest to keep them in.

The bottom line is that the government helps to fund Sports Canada which in turn puts money towards Hockey Canada - and the Feds are threatening to cut off that funding. Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc leader, said that "It's taxpayers' money, so they will have to have some answers". True, except that Gilles seems to be the only one hot under the collar about it and for him to dare use me and my fellow non-Quebeckers as pawns in his rhetoric kind of disgusts me. He doesn't care at all about anything or anyone outside of Quebec and these little subliminal phrases won't make me forget that.

I think Gilles is still just pissy because back in December 2005 everyone rejected his call to have a separate hockey team representing Quebec during the Olympics instead of having one team from Canada and he's still throwing tantrums trying to get his way.

Guess after saying that I'm now on the Team Canada blacklist eh?

Another Law I Can Do Without

No no no no no.

Tomorrow bill C-16 is slated to receive royal assent making it law. This bill, already passed by the senate, would require that we have federal elections every four years on the third Monday of October.

Not only are there thousands of issues more important for our politicians to be spending time on, but I'm a little fuzzy on how this is supposed to introduce "greater fairness" in our electoral system.

Harper says that under the current system, where the Prime Minister can call the date of a general election, the governing party can "manipulate the timing of elections for partisan advantage". I say that this kind of rationale is insulting to Canadians. Harper is saying that the public is incapable of being aware of what party they prefer for what reasons; that we can't possibly remember what one party did last year or what the other didn't do. In fact, what he is telling us is that you should be basing your vote solely on what parties claim in and around the date of the fixed election. Plus, if a party calls an election at an obviously opportunistic time, it gives the public a chance to judge that for themselves and not have Harper decide what we should and should not think.

I would also counter that having a fixed election date does not mean that the governing party can't give themselves a partisan advantage. If you know when the election is, then you can plan a spate of government spending leading up to the election as part of your 'campaigning'.

Need I also bring up the fact that with fixed elections you are will definitely see early campaigning from all parties including television, radio, and road sign bombardment. I doubt Canadians want any more of this than we are already subjected to. Think about the US Presidential elections and how they drag on for two years before you even get to the polls. You thinking about it? Are you looking forward to it here? I thought not.

If our goal is to model ourselves after the American electoral system, which is no way without flaws, then this is a step in the right direction.


~

La défense du Canada

On Thursday last I wrote a rather bombastic letter to the mayor and city council of Vancouver in an attempt to have them alter a bothersome road sign on my commute. I'm rather pleased with how it turned out.

My letter, sent April 26, 2007, with my personal info edited:

Honourable Sam Sullivan and esteemed Council members,

Every day on my commute into downtown Vancouver as I head North on Oak Street, I drive under a sign at Douglas Crescent (W 19th on the West side of Oak) that directs you to turn left to enter the "City Center". This may seem like a small thing to the members of Council, but it disturbs me and several people I've mentioned it to and therefore feel that it is an appropriate matter to bring to your attention.

So much of what makes us Canadian is slowly eroding away as we become more and more integrated with other nations and this sign does not respect a basic tenet of our society; our language. I hope that our city Council will support my suggestion that this sign be either fixed or replaced with the word "Centre" spelled as we would in this country. The current incorrect spelling reminds me every morning of our inability to respect our heritage, protect our education system, or care about the impact of things that don't make big headlines.

We already have a populace who is in the beginning stages of being unaware that in Canada we use two 'l's in 'traveller' or that when we short form dates it should be listed as day/month/year rather than the American system of month/day/year. If we are unable to muster concern over these little things, soon we will lose the 'u' in our honour and forget our history - we will forget where our language comes from and why it is as we read and hear it today. And if we're willing to say that it's 'good enough', where are our values, self-respect, or drive to be better and show it?

Again, I hope this petition is taken seriously as I do find it to be a serious matter. None of the big problems can be fixed without looking at the principles and bases of what makes us who we are. If we are willing to be indifferent about our culture where will this leave us? Thousands of people see that sign every day, and whether they chose to or not they are affected by it. Everything around us has an effect on our beings - we can't escape it, so I will remain optimistic that our Council will see fit to spend a few minutes in their busy schedules and imagine what kind of Canada we'd like to build in our corner of the country.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Spage

The next morning I received this reply:

Thank you for your email which has been circulated for information to the Mayor, Councillors, City Manager, and forwarded to the attention of Engineering Services.

An hour and a half later I get a reply from a councillor:

Dear Spage,

I agree and I will have our staff make the change.

Sincerely,
Raymond Louie
Councillor, City of Vancouver

This morning (Monday) I got another e-mail:

Hi Spage, the sign will be changed to the correct spelling.

Thanks

Mike Markovic
City of Vancouver
Traffic Management

And then this afternoon another follow-up e-mail:

Dear Spage,

After communications with staff, I'm advised by Traffic Operations that this sign should be replaced within a couple of weeks. The exact schedule will have to be fitted in with some special-event work they are doing, but it will be installed very shortly.

Sincerely,

Raymond Louie
Councillor, City of Vancouver

How exciting! My pride cup runneth over.

Free To See

Vancouver mayor Sam Sullivan has announced that he has a dream; to see Christ's birthday week as the time when we can all go to a local museum at no cost. This idea is part of the development of a long-term cultural strategy for Vancouver and the mayor uses Paris as the model where they offer free admission to public museums and galleries over the x-mas holidays.

It might please the mayor to know, that while he spoke of the one week a year of free museum entry in Paris, he failed to mention that there is one day every month that entry to museums is free. And Paris is far from the only city in the world to offer this deal. In short, I support the idea, but I believe it should go further and that we should be aware that this is absolutely not an innovative concept - in fact, we're far behind most in the appreciation of science, art, or anything else a museum can be built for.

Just ask Harper, his Conservative Party used the last budget to cut the already paltry funding to our country's smaller underfunded museums forcing many to close.

Asshole.

Role Models

Once again, a person who lived through the era of Holocaust reminds us about sacrifice and to look out for our fellow man.

Ignore everything to do with Bush in this article about one man's effort to save a few lives during the Virginia Tech shootings earlier this week. Reading it reminded me of another Holocaust survivor I recently wrote about and about how much we all have to learn about ourselves.

"Librescu, 76, leaned against the door of his Virginia Tech classroom, blocking the path of the gunman who had opened fire on campus and was carrying out a rampage that would result in the deaths of 32 people as well as himself.

Librescu's actions Monday morning gave his students enough time to climb out the window of his second-storey classroom. The gunman eventually got through the door and killed Librescu, but not before his students escaped."

This man stood for what he believed was right for his entire life, and gave everything in the end for those principles.

"Librescu, who grew up in Romania, was only a boy when his native country joined forces with Nazi Germany in the Second World War. His family said Librescu was interned at a labour camp and then sent to a ghetto with his family and thousands of other Jews.

Librescu survived the war and found work at a government aerospace company. His family said his career was stonewalled when he refused to pledge allegiance to Romania's Communist regime in the 1970s."

We don't have to stand against our governments, survive one of the worst atrocities in history, or go down in a hail of gunfire to be this man - you just have to fucking give a shit about the state of affairs this planet finds itself in. Just care - and act like you do.

Be a Sophia Rabliauskas who is seeking to protect the boreal forest we take for granted. Read a story about how human greed killed 51 sea lions and find it unacceptable. Be Corinne Keuter, a voter in France who learned the importance of casting her vote. Be aware that there are other wars going on besides the ones in Iraq and Afganistan; Somalia, Israel and Palestine, actually just look at this list of "Ongoing Conflicts" from Wikipedia. Doing any of these things has value too.

"His wife, speaking to reporters Wednesday, said her husband always thought of others before he thought of himself. This was most evident on the day he died, she said.

"He was fighting for everyone," Marlena Librescu said. "He was always helping how he could, but he was not able to help himself.""

He was not able to help himself. You see, if we all looked out for each other, then there would be somebody there to help you. It's pretty simple isn't it?


~

Simple Lives

Life must be so basic for chicks. Everything in their lives seem to be expressions of the same objective: getting a man. And they believe that it is men who are that singularly focused on their prey. Please.

I've been trying to decide what courses to register for this summer. I picked one history class called War in the Modern World and then there were two others that are at the same time so I have to pick one. They are; Foundation of Economics and another history course, Introduction to Modern East Asia.

I asked one of my female supervisors for her opinion on whether she thought it was wise to take two History courses at the same time with the same instructor, if she had any personal insights, etc. It was a useless endeavour.

After declaring all three courses to be boring based on their titles, she suggested I find out which instructor was hotter and to take that class. When I informed her that History was taught by a man and Economics by a woman, she quickly handed me back the course descriptions and declared the decision to be obvious; you take the courses taught by the man. She called the choice a "no-brainer".

*sigh* Yes indeed. I suppose one with no brain would use that decision making process.

It Took A Lot Of Courage

I just dyed my hair from orange with brown roots to white blonde. When I showed up at work Monday morning, three different people told me that I was brave for having done that.

Bravery has been seriously devalued over the years.