Equality...please, pick a side!

It happened again the other night at groceries that had me scratching my head and wondering about the whole feminism and women's liberation and all. Groceries were coming in late, normally they are there at 1-2pm and we have about 7-10 people helping unload the 6-13 pallets of food (ranging from 6000 to 14,000 lbs of food) that are a mixture of cans, vegetables, frozen meats and what not. Because the food was arriving later than normal, all the people that would have normally helped went to bed, leaving 6 people awake to unload groceries. No problem, had a light day of groceries so we could handle it. The thing that got me scratching my head was when one of the girls in our company came in to help unload the groceries and while she was waiting around with the rest of the crew, the (female) manager came in and asked what she was doing still up. The reply was "I am waiting to help with groceries". The manager flipped and basically said in no short terms (which she has repeated constantly every time we ask for help with groceries) "groceries are not in your job description and the camp does not want women unloading groceries". This got me slightly purterbed.

This is not the first time the one lady had offered to help unload groceries. She has helped out on two occassions (one when the male manager was in and she got a thanks for helping out from him, and once when the female manager was in and she got a stern talking to and the crew got a lecture the next day at the staff meeting) and she does really well. Granted, there are some boxes or things that come her way that she stands back and says "sorry, that looks way too heavy for me" and we let it go. I mean, if any of the guys on the crew looked at the frozen prime rib or watermelon cases and said "nope, too heavy" we let them stand back, get the box to the next person in the line and off they go with it. No insults, no comments, no jabs at lack of masculinity. We are an understanding bunch and we all know that we know and accept our limitations and wont do stupid stuff like trying to lift a 90 lbs box just to show off how strong we are. As well, this girl has worked as a bartender/porter in bars and has lifted boxes of beer, cases of hard liquor as well as other heavy items in the bar, so it isnt like she is a tiny 70 lbs weakling trying to prove to the guys that she is capable but straining her body to the point of breaking. We all know that she can hold her own and carry a good deal quite easily.

We have told the female manager this, she has seen the girl lift heavy boxes as a housekeeper and other job around camp, and yet when it comes to groceries 'women dont lift groceries'. At first the manager tried the excuse "it is not in your job description", but that got shot down because it isnt in the medics or any of the other male supervisors in the blasting or mining part of the camp job description to help lift groceries, and yet they are there.

Why is it that when it comes to equality, as well as chivalry, some women say they want equality in both when it suits them better, but when the job or action goes against them they denounce equality and fall back on their gender? Like when a woman is out with her boyfriend, she likes it when he acts all macho and does work for her like opening car doors, getting slightly jealous and protective when guys whistle at her, making a scene of fighting if she feels insulted by another person at the bar. But when the guy does something that makes her feel inferior like ordering for her or telling her what she should have to eat, then she starts screaming equality and that she has a mind and can do things on her own. Well, if she can do things on her own, then why cant she open her own car door, fight her own battles or solve her own problems?

Yet again, this just reassures my personal belief that we will never have equality and peace with the genders until women can figure out what it is that they want in life. Do they want to be treated like the damsel in distress and men are knights in shining armour, or do they want to be seen as equals. In which case, isnt it better to treat all people like men than to treat all people like the stereotypical women? after all, if we are all treated, and treat each other, like the way women want to be treated in romance books and such, then wouldnt that mean that no door would ever be opened, no person would ever be wooed (since we would all be waiting for the other to do something), no meal would ever be paid for since it is always the other persons responsibility to pay for the meal. But if we treated all like men, then we would open our own doors, pay for our own meals, solve our own battles and the only reason we would be with someone is because we want to be with them, not we are with them because we have to be with them to keep social norms at bay.

Ducks are Dead

*Sigh* it has happened..my Ducks have been sucked into that great Oil slick and havent been able to pull themselves out. Their last game for this hockey season was on May 27, 2006 in which they lost to the Oilers 2-1 giving the Oilers a 4-1 win over their elimination round.

The Ducks put up a valiant fight and proved their worth. I will be back next season near the end of the cup to cheer on my Ducks with quacks and cheers. They may be gone today, but they shall be back tomorrow with their fighting spirit.

The Will To Be Free

Are humans naturally free? Is there something deep in our souls or nature that craves freedom, or do we secretly want to be dominated, controlled or taken care of in some fashion? We all say we want freedom, hence why we fight to get away from our parents at a certain age (that age depending on the person..sometimes in their early teens, sometimes in their late 30's), but once we acquire that freedom and the chance to be alone, we start looking for someone to be with that will help take care of us in a fashion.

I asked a simple question at the dinner table today. "have you ever watched a movie when you were young and cheered for the hero but then watched it again later in life and thought about the hero's actions and thought that perhaps he wasn't a hero but his actions were evil?" of course, a few people looked at me blankly, like they normally do, but one asked me which movie I watched. H.G. Well's "the Time Machine", the original 1960 version not the horrible remake that they did recently. I remember how when the hero went to the future, saw how people had turned out and how the Morlocks were taking control of peoples lives and future and how he fought the system, I stood up and cheered for him saying that he did right. BUT, now as an adult, I sit back and look at his actions and ask myself "what right did he have meddling in their social structure, their lives, their agreement in society?"

It was at that point that one individual said that he was surprised that I would actually think that the people were better off living under morlock control than being free. Obviously oppression and all that was happening to the people was an evil that should be stopped. But, did the people really view it as an evil that had to be stopped? The people got food, shelter, water and all the necessities of life and in payment they had to sacrifice a few individuals to the morlock cave every now and then. They were taken care of, could play, dance, sing and do whatever they wanted with their time. No one complained in the society, no one stopped it from happening, no one stood up and looked at the cave and said "I wonder what happens to people that go in there", so why should an outsider suddenly walk into the place and say "this is wrong, I have my beliefs and you are against all that I believe...therefore, I shall destroy the morlocks and free you all" Never asking the people if they wanted to be free, never asking them if they were happy, never stopping to wonder if he was doing it for the good of the people or the good of the one that he loved.

So then I had to wonder, is it in mankinds nature to be free or to be dominated? when he said he was surprised that I felt that mankind should be free, I had to wonder if that was because living in a relatively free society (granted we cant shoot people in the streets without some form of punishment, but we are still free to do things that are relatively harmless) he was projecting his own beliefs on the nature of humans, or if it was because we are all basically wanting to be free.

His other argument was that the people didnt know what the morlocks were doing to the people that went under ground, so therefore the people were not in a mutual agreement with the morlocks but were only cattle. I countered with the thought that if the people had asked what was happening and were inquisitive about the whole arrangement and didnt like what was going on but were forced into it, then that would be akin to slavery or oppression. If you dont ask or read the fine print, then you are not exempt from the responsibilities. Wouldn't that be like going to the bank, signing a contract for a loan, not reading the small print and then being shocked and amazed that in the contract it says that if you don't pay the loan back they can take your house and first born child and then scream out oppression or unfairness. Ignorance of a contract or agreement is not a valid excuse for calling it off.

I then mentioned that perhaps the hero did bad because even though he freed the people from the threat of death by morlock, what he did was put hundreds, possibly thousands, of helpless people out to the world to fend for themselves in one day. These people have no idea on how to hunt, fish, farm, build, read or write. All their food and supplies were brought to them. So, in his 'noble' actions, he may very well have killed more of these people through disease, starvation or injury than the morlocks would have taken in months or years.

So, now I am left to wonder. What exactly is the true nature of the human being? are we bent on freedom and doing things for ourselves, or are we basically lazy individuals that like to have all our needs met by others? The Greeks had slaves for the rich, given them more time to spend singing, dancing, eating and thinking. Is that what humans strive for? someone else to do our work so that we can sing, dance, eat and think our way to happiness? And did the hero of The Time Machine do evil by freeing the people that didnt ask to be freed, or did he do right by freeing people that he felt were oppressed?

Ducks Fly Straight

OHHH I am shamed that I ever doubted my Ducks! With 2 crushing defeats before them, they fought back valiantly but were defeated in their last game. However, they must have been ticked off totally because they came back tonight to crush the Oilers in a 6-3 victory!

Ducks, Ducks, My Mighty Ducks! The cup is nearly yours...hold tight, fly straight and right and victory shall be yours again. Keep the momentum, stop the Oiler train and head to glory!!!!

Ducks fighting Spirit

well, the Ducks are still on a losing streak of 3-0 against the Oilers, making it entirely possible that there might be a clean sweep against the Ducks, like the Ducks did to Colorado. However, I have to give my Ducks the congratulations that they deserve since they were losing 1-0 by the end of the first period, then in the second period there was nothing. Third period is when my Ducks came out to shine! three rapid goals by the Oilers making it 4-0 didnt dampen their spirits and they came back to score a fast paced 3 goals bringing it to 4-3, giving the Oilers a bit of a scare, but then the Oilers scored another goal to 5-3, and then, in the last minute of the game, the Ducks got one more goal bringing it to 5-4 for the Oilers, and a defeat for the Ducks.

Though, if you look at the final score it would show that the Ducks did lose, but when you see it from the way of heart, the Ducks were losing quite a bit but instead of laying down to die, they fought back and did a quick and assertive come back. However, alas, the fury was too great and they did lose the game. I still have faith though. Come on Ducks! get out of that oil slick, brush off those wings and fly right...the cup is in your grasps, dont let it slide away!

See, we are screwed up!

I came across this rather interesting article the other day from Amnesty International about some reports done on 150 countries. (http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/can-summary-eng) This is the report done on Canada. Here I thought that we were such a nice little nation, solving our problems and being kind, considerate and peaceful to others. Little did I know all the horrors that are lurking in the cities across this huge nation.

Violence against indigenous women : "High levels of discrimination and violence against Indigenous women continued" I always figured there was high levels of discrimination but not against indigenous women, but more in favor of the indigenous women. We have our own little brand of discrimination when it comes to the indigenous people, and it is called 'affirmative action' which means that when a First Nation individual and any other human being applies for something, the job will be favoured for the First Nation unless there is something totally against hiring them. A First Nation applies for a job as a brain surgeon and they only have a grade 10 education, there is a high chance that they wont get it. A First Nation applies for a job as a secretary and can only type 34 works per minute and the only office experience that they have is talking to secretaries, and another human being applies that can type 100 words per minute and has about 10 years of indepth office experience and a diploma in office management, then there is a high chance that the First Nation is going to get it to keep the status quo. Though, it was reported that "police responses to threats against Indigenous women’s lives were inconsistent and often inadequate" Perhaps the reason the police are inconsistent to the reponse of threats is because they happen so bloody often. The women will call up the police and say "My husband is drunk and trying to kill me" so the police go out to the house, grab the husband, take him to the police station, charge him with attempted murder or assault only to have the wife say "he was just kidding, I didnt mean to call you guys, now charges, thanks for sobering him up" and then goes back home with the guy so that he can do it again in 2 days time. Alcohol doesnt even have to be a factor, all that has to happen is that the women call the police at the tiniest thing and then DONT LEAVE THE HUSBAND/BOYFRIEND! Could be a case of crying wolf once too often.

I won't go more into detail because, like the saying goes "best to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" (though I think that is a little late by now, dont you?). But it seems that the majority of our problems is in the grey area of friendly relations with other nations. A person commits a crime or somthing in another country, comes to Canada and then says "refugee, protect me from my horrible country" and then expects Canada to welcome this new comer with open arms and say "dont worry, we shall fight and protect you against the evil country that you call your own...here, have huge sums of money to set up camp in Canada".

While I agree with helping out those in need and protecting the innocent from atrocities around the world, there has to be a limit as to what we can and can't do. We can protect you against the horrors of life in Canada, we can't protect you against bringing you to justice in another country for another crime in that country because who are we, Canadians, to pass judgement as to what is right or wrong in that country you are from?

Interesting read though, this report...if you are not interested in Canada, go there and check out the other 150 countries they report on, see how your country is doing.

Ducks are wounded, but not dead!!!

well, my Ducks played last night and lost 3-1 to the Oilers. The Oilers now have a 1-0 lead on them in the series. But, I am confided and hopeful that my Ducks shall prevail. This was only a warning shot fired by the Oilers and grazed the wings of my Mighty Ducks.

Though put my head out on the chopping block the other night. People kept asking if the game is on since we have a TV in the back kitchen area for the cooks to watch while we work. So, the cooks and servers get the pleasure of calling out the score to the dining room every now and then. Normally we wait for someone to scream out "what is the score?" and we scream the answer back...however, to keep people happy we randomly scream out the score, period and penalties. Anyways, when people asked last night "so what is the score?" I answered some, quite unintentionally "doesnt really matter..Ducks are going to win the cup"...yeah, I am gonna get it..

Now why didnt I think of this!?!??!

was reading in the paper again (I know, nasty habit I have been developing since I am finding that I was much happier and content with the world not knowing all the stupidity that was going on) and came across this interesting article about a student across the pond. (http://edmsun.canoe.ca/News/World/2006/05/19/1587765-sun.html) Now, this is rather interesting. I first was reading it thinking "that is soo good! the school system over there is willing to accept a students sexual orientation so early in life, make arrangements and changes and allow that student to blend in so that they don't feel left out or singled out for ridicule by the system". However, it wasnt until I got near the end of the article and read:

"The official said the boy's name is listed with girl students, and that he is allowed to join the girls' gym class and use the girls' bathroom. The boy, who's in the second grade, wears a girl's swimsuit at the school pool."

that my male thinking mind kicked in and I thought "DAMN! why didn't I think of this when I was that young!?!?!?" After all, I have been told that when I was that young I was quite the woman chaser and matured rather quickly for my young age. At 7 I would have rather enjoyed changing with the girls, having gym with the girls (wrestling or other contact sports would definitly have been more interesting and would have held my attention longer) or lining up with the girls.

So, either this young boy/girl truly has been born into the wrong body and the system has been accomodating to the individual (which I applaud the system) OR the boy/girl has really hit across a fantastic scam and is pulling the wool over the systems eyes (which, I applaud the ingeniousness of the young individual). Either which way, hope that the system stays this open minded right through to college, cause it will make for the puberty years of the individual incredibly interesting*G*

Death Warrant Signed

Today on the news I heard the results. The Edmonton Oilers beat the San Jose Sharks in their elimiation rounds. At first I was happy cause Edmonton is my home town, or at least where I am living at the moment. Then I heard the dreaded news, The Oilers will be facing off against the Ducks in the next round of playoffs. My heart sank. Don't get me wrong, I don't fear for the Ducks cause I know that if it is Ducks against the Oil Slick, the Ducks shall come out victorious. The problem lies with the fans of the Oilers.

There are quite a few of these fans up here in the camp that I am working at, and they are all quite verbal and set on the Oilers winning. If they are even half as bad as the fans down in Edmonton (check them out at http://www.bluemile.ca) then I should fear for my life. Imagine, all the mayhem and destruction that has been inflicted on Whyte Ave in the past few wins have been because they were happy people. Can you imagine the things that they would to do people or places if they were unhappy????

I think for the next few games, and right up til the Ducks walk away with the cup, I am going to be cheering, but in a slightly subdued manner...so, yeah *whispers* go Ducks go!

If we had equality, would this matter?

Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that if we had equality would death matter or not, what I am wondering is that by reading this article, it is almost like the newspaper people are trying to get some sort of reaction from the Canadian people. First Canadian woman killed in Afghanistan was killed in action at 6:55 p.m., May 16th, 2006, 24 kilometres west of Kandahar city in a 'fierce fire fight'. Apparently this is also the first Canadian woman soldier to have been killed in any combat zone since the second world war.

Granted, it is a great loss when a soldier dies in battle (but also it could be said that is a great loss since in that same fire fight that claimed the life of Capt. Nichola Goddard, there were also numerous taliban insergents that were killed...but, then again, since we are 'we' and they are 'they' it really doesn't matter how many of 'they' are killed, but it hurts us when one of 'we' are killed in battle). But I digress and back to my point. There have been 17 Canadian deaths in Afghanistan since 2002, but all of sudden this death is really news worth. First woman dies in battle. If she is a soldier in the Canadian Armed Forces, and she is an equal (since she has raised in rank to Captain and not just 'head nurse' or something chauvanistically feminist restricted) then shouldn't the caption be reading "18th Canadian dies in Afghanistan". Does it really matter that the 18th is a female? Do we have different body counts now, Male and Female lines? Is the media trying to get a certain feeling of bravado and hatred from Canadians for the fighting enemy in Afghanistan? "you can kill a diplomat and 16 male soldiers, but you are now killing our WOMEN??!!!??! you bastards...quick, Martha, get my shot gun and boots. I am going over there now to kick some Afghannie ass!" Or are they trying to get us to feel so enraged that women are dying that we are going to insist that the gov't send over more troops to help protect the soldiers. After all, male soldiers die, big deal...men are born and raised with courage and stupidity (more one than the other in some cases) so therefore they are meant to be killed in battle. That is the way it was, and that is the way it shall be forever. But when women start to die, well that just means that there needs to be more protection.

Or, is this a ploy to get the people to take sides against Canadian presence in Afghanistan? Yeah, men can die playing soldier, we dont mind...but you dont go killing our women. 16 men die, no big whoop, but one woman dies, this is not a game anymore, this is damn serious...pull out and stop the blood shed. But then again, when it comes to the media, their only main objective is to report the news and then let the people dece what to do with it.

Then my other question, to go with the headline, is do you think that this being said and the articles written in this fashion, that the feminist movement will raise a stink and say "she is not a female that died in battle, she is a soldier that died in battle..how DARE you single her gender out in the article...you should mention a captain died, a canadian died, the name of the soldier and her age if it is applicable but you should not DARE make a fuss about her gender..she is a human being, not a mascot or martyr to put forth in your damned papers". Personally, I will say 'no, the feminist movement will not raise a stink or raise a fuss about her gender being reported and displayed'. Why? you ask...I am glad you asked. It is because by mentioning her gender and making it known that she died, first female Canadian to die in a combat zone since WWII, that only shows that woman are becoming a driving force in the military. If she had been a nurse that died in battle, a Canadian female bystander/journalist or even a receptionist in the field office, then they would drive a stink about it because that only displays that women are being kept in 'female provicient' male chauvanistic jobs. But a CAPTIAN in the army! a woman, moving up in ranks, in charge of men under her and can bark orders to a group of soldiers and they have to jump to those orders without a 'oh yes ma'am, now show us what is under those fatigues!'. A woman gaining influence. I bet the only thing that the feminist movement wants now is a female general or admiral or someone of much higher rank to die so that they can point to the papers and say "damn, us women are moving up in the world! we are becoming a force...see girls, dont let men keep you down, you too could become a captain in the army and get shot at!" These articles that report her gender so highly are only helping he feminist cause, and when something helps the cause, no matter what the reason, it should be upheld and never shunned.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n0517137A.xml
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/05/17/1585138.html
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2006/05/17/1584678.html

Canadian Census 2006

Yes, that is right ladies and gentlemen of Canada, time has come for you to have filled in your census and hand it in to the great gov't that exists so that all Canadians can be accounted for. I did mine before I left, though had to get creative with the answers. They ask for the info to be handed in but they have a group of questions about day to day life that are phrased "in the week leading up to May 16th, how many hours did you work, play, sleep, eat, jump around the house naked" those sorts of things. You know, every day stuff. Well, I filled my forms in on May 2nd online, which I had to since I would be away from the area up to that date. So I had to anticipate my hours in the up coming week ahead. I hope I got it all right and all.

But, so far in the two articles that I have read about the Census, people are already finding problems with it and getting all paranoid. First it was the French/Francophones. (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060515/statscan_census_060515/20060515/) when they started to say that if the french listed english or something as their language then the gov't would cut down all french and francophone services. The gov't then issued a statement saying that the census is only a bean counting exercise and that no funds will be cut or a people group be excluded because of what they read. Good advice, but think of it from the peoples point of view. The french are concerned that the gov't is going to cut their funds, so having the gov't then stand up and say "no, we are not going to cut funds" is a practice in futility. If the people are already distrustful of the gov't what good will having the gov't standing up and saying "we are not crooks" do? Why not just write down what you are and what you think and hand it in? not like the gov't has a habit of reading what people think and then limit what we do. We are a free country, within reasonable means and guidelines.

Then it came to the same sex marriage group. Their claim and annoyance is a little more understandable and acceptable and I can see their concern. ( http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060516/census_gay_marriage_060516/20060516?hub=Canada) After all, if I had found for so long to get my marriage recognized in the country and then all of a sudden find that my marriage is listed as 'other' I would be annoyed as well. Why dont we list them as husband and wife? if a woman is married she is a wife, if a man is married he is a husband. So what is the big deal in saying that a same sex marriage has two husband and two wives? Take off the 'other' in the marriage category and accept it, that same sex marriages are here to stay and they are the wives and husbands of Canada as well.

Another thing that is being mentioned is the new addition that allows the statscan people to release what you have written to the world after 92 years. (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060506/census_060506?s_name=&no_ads=) This article somehow seems to have gone a little over board but I often scratch my head at the secrecy that some people want to go through when it comes to keeping their info private. Granted, they do have that right to say "no, I dont want people in 92 years to know how much I made in 2006, nor do they need to know if I was married or not" but come on people, it is only an income and all. I mean, if they were asking you to list your penis/breast size, how often you masterbate or how often you and your wife/husband/lover/hooker/pet (whatever your sexual desire) get intimate, then yeah I can understand that you wouldnt want that released, or you might even wonder why the gov't cares about that sort of thing. but this is only common, every day mundane stuff. So, of course,I checked that box allowing my relatives to be able to look me up in the far distant future. After I am dead and gone, my great grandchild can look up my stats and tell the class "yes, in 2006 my great grandfather was single in May and he was a cook". OHHHHH, earth shattering info there people*G*

One thing I found funny was how the Canadian gov't has removed the question on religion from the census. Think this might be in relation to the one time a census (either US or Canada, cant remember but thinking US) had religion and a majority of the citizens marked down their religion as 'Jedi'*G* Maybe this gov't didnt want to prove to the world that there were more geeks in Canada than in the past 5 year census*G*

think too much?

when someone tells you something, you can sluff it off as their own opinion. When someone else, who has heard what the first person says, says the same thing you can say that it is just them parroting what the first person has said. HOWEVER, when someone totally unrelated to those people and there is no possible way that it could have gotten to them, says the EXACT same thing, well then maybe there is something there to believe in, wouldn't you say?

I am not a hockey fan, I don't know the rules and really have a hard time telling the difference between a slap shot and a hat trick, but I do know an underdog when I see one. I cheer for the underdogs because, let's face it, no one else will. We all love our winners, we all love to say that we have cheered for the champions. Does anyone of those cheerers ever realize that perhaps the underdogs play just as hard but might be hindered by certain factors? This is why I raise my voice for the Ducks. It was my cheering for the Ducks, as well as my theory, that caused a lady in camp to look at me and shake her head and say, with a smile, "you think too much"

My theory, as to why I cheer for the Ducks is because of their name in hockey. Whereas Billy Shakespeare once penned "what is in a name, for a rose by another other name would still smell as sweet", people in the world seem to equate names with personality traits. People are proud of their names when their names reflect their personality, whereas if the name is not close to what they want, they are ashamed of it. This is what I feel is happening with the Ducks. After all, it seems that all the other hockey teams have names of power, strength and confidence. The Flames, The Oilers, Red Wings, Senators, Avalanche...all names that you can be proud of. These are names that if you walk into a bar and say "I play for the Red Wings" you are saying a name that has power, pride and a little bit of manliness to the name. A name that will almost always get a woman swooning and guarantee that you will get lucky that night. However, if you are a Duck and you walk into a bar and say "I play for the Ducks" you might as well be a man and walk up to a lady in a bar and say "hi, my name is Sue". Chances are high that you will walk home along that night. So, when it comes down to names, all the players on the Ducks must be playing for the love of the game cause they sure as heck aren't playing for the power of the name. That, in my mind shows true love for the sport of hockey.

Now I have been accused by my fiancee as thinking too much, I have been accused of my friends of thinking too much, but they have all had contact with one another and there is a chance that they heard one or the other say it and are just repeating what the other said. HOWEVER, this lady in camp could not have heard it since she hasn't met my fiancee or my friends. So, something tells me that there might be something there. hmmmm, wonder if I should take this to heart and consider thinking about it?

Guardian Angels in Canada

Honestly I really dont get the hype about the Guardian Angels coming to Canada and setting up shop. Just recently the founder of the Angels has been trying to convince select cities in Canada to allow them to set up shop and have people join their group.

If unsure about the group, here is their website (http://www.guardianangels.org/). From what I have gathered about this group, or at least from what I have read, it seems that they are an organization of people who are society minded and conscious, that basically just walk around the city areas in their 'uniforms' to make themselves visible. They are trained in the area of citizens arrest and know when they can or can not use those powers. From what I gather, they are more like a visible form of deterant for crime than actual law enforcers.

The pros of this are that they basically are going to be doing what we, as normal everyday citizens, should be doing on a regular basis. If we see someone commiting a crime, whether it be something as light as littering or jaywalking right up to murder or assault, we should intervene and help out whomever is being violated and maybe save a life. We are not talking people that will walk blindly out into a gun fire fight with their hands outstretched and scream out "citizens arrest, drop your weapons!" but at least someone that wont stand out of the way of a fleeing purse snatching saying "ummm, I dont know..if I trip him, can he sue me for assault? hmm, better not risk it, after all, not my purse".

Canadian society these days has become too self centred, too self absorbed and all that people are breaking laws knowing that no one will rise up to the rescue. It is almost like we are becoming a society of loners thinking only of our own safety and security and not the security of the others around us. When, in fact, by not rising up to assist and help out those around us makes us open to attack and decreases our sense of security and safety. After all, there is safety in numbers and when we are a band of people, sticking together, ready to stop someone from bullying another, then we are a strong community. If we are individual people, sitting back and only protecting ourselves, then we are weak individuals.

If you would like an analogy, think of it as a war. If an attacking force sends in their soldiers one person at a time, or at least sends the whole lot into the battle with the orders "fight for yourself, dont protect the person beside you, try to stay alive" then the battle will be lost because all the soldiers will be hunted down one by one and killed, or at least there wont be any team work to hold together. That is what is happening in today's society. There is the battle against crime happening and us, as soldiers, are going into it one soldier at a time, watching our fellow soldiers getting picked off one by one without lending a hand. The opposing side seems to know that the team work of law abiding citizens is low and that if they start to commit a crime, no one will raise up against them. Hence why women in self defence classes are taught "if you are being assaulted or raped, never call RAPE, call out FIRE." Apparently, sociological and psychological studies have shown that if a person hears RAPE they run away from the call whereas if they hear FIRE they run towards the call. Perhaps it is a case of fear in that when they hear RAPE there is a person doing an action that could automatically turn on them, whereas with FIRE it is a localized thing and if it is too far out of control, the helper can stand back and stay in safety.

Though, I do also recognize the cons of the Guardian Angels. They do have the potential to do more harm than good. One thing I have always beleived in this world is that there is nothing more dangerous in this world than an individual with a cause; and when you have a group of people with a cause, then it is dangerous times many. I am not suggesting that having a cause or something to fight for is a bad thing. After all, Ghandi had a cause and he did wonders; Mother Theresa had a cause, and she did miracles. Though, on the flip side, Hitler had a cause, and look what happened there; Bush has a cause, and look at what is happening in the world. So, it isnt basically the person with the cause, but perchance the cause itself. Now, for the Guardian Angels, there is potential for the group to turn into a gang and start harrassing people in the name of good. After all, two people are alone in a park and having a screaming match, a guardian angel over hears it and comes running in and, without asking questions because of their zealous nature, starts to exert force. The arguement turns out to be a harmless one between a boyfriend and a girlfriend about somthing trivial, the kind that we all have once a month, or even once a week, with our significant others. In this case, too much zeal and all could turn the Guardian Angels into a form of bully and hazard on every day citizens, thus causing the police to get complaints. Thus, because of the Guardian Angels, the police work load will raise because now they not only have to deal with criminals, but they have to deal with law enforcing do-gooders.

Another possible 'con' to the Angels setting up shop is that there might be grounds for a certain form of extortion if corrupted individuals get into the group. For example, the Guardian Angels develop a high profile and good reputation for lower crime rates in the areas that they patrol. The Guardian Angels then go up to certain shop keepers and say "psst, if you want an Angel to patrol your place on a regular basis, then I suggest you start to show your appreciation to us". Thus, turning the non-profit organization into a sort of extortion group as bad as the mob, with the exception that the 'protection fee' is really a protection fee and not just a fee to stop the collector from trashing the joint. In this case, the Angels could do harm to society. However, no matter what the organization, there is always a chance that good can become evil (since cops can be bribed if the cops want to be bribed).

Another 'con' could be that the Angels could potentially raise the harmfulness of a situation higher than it needs to be. If a person is commiting a crime, like a rape, assault or robbery, unless they are a hardened criminal that have done this countless times and can handle the adrenaline and excitment of the whole thing, there is a chance that the person doing the crime is more jacked up and volitile than the victim is scared. Now, you got a guy with a weapon, doing a crime, stressed out to the limit and asks everyone to stay in their seats or not to be a hero, and then all of a sudden you got 2 people with red berets jumping up and screaming "citizens arrest" and storm forward with the zeal and justice in their pocket that only a fanatic has in their hearts. Well, that is just a recipe for disaster. Now you got a scared person, with a weapon, loads of innocent bystanders who want to get home alive and things get out of control. People could get hurt.

The flip side to this scenario is that if the person knows that the Guardian Angels will stand up and stop a crime from being commited, and the individual sees two Angels sitting on the bus, there is a high chance that they wont try to mug the little old lady in the back of the bus but rather go off somewhere else to commit the crime. If there are enough Angels, or citizens that are willing to intervene everywhere, then chances are that the person wont commit that crime on people that stay in areas that are public.

Simply put, the Angels are simply a deterant from the crime actually starting, not stopping the crime once it has begun. If more criminals about to commit a crime stopped and said to themselves "I could mug that lady here on the bus, but if I do someone on the bus might stop me and help her" then maybe less crimes would be commited. If the person in the apartment knew that if he beats his girlfriend or wife, the neighbour next door wont just turn up the volume and ignore the sounds of beatings and crying but instead call the police or try to help the woman, then maybe there would be less spousal abuse. Perhaps if people just cared about their fellow man and tried to stop a crime from happening instead of sitting back and saying "the police will arrest them, and when they do I hope that the courts throw the book at them" the world might be a better place.

As to the Angels, you can make up your own mind whether or not they are truly Guardian Angels or if they are just thugs with wings. I would love to hear your points, or even get your site to see if you have written about them. Thanks.

Compare the two Countries...

Just recently I came across two cases that were quite similiar but the outcome was incredibly different.

The first case is a case of Took Leng How (http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,93717,00.html) (http://www.littlespeck.com/content/lifestyle/CTrendsLifestyle-041128.htm)from Singapore. In this case a 22 year old man was found guilty in a court of law of taking a young girl, suffocating her, hiding her body in plastic bags and a box and then dumping the body. He returns later to confess to the crime of murder (under his parents urging) and show the police where the body as dumped. He was found guilty of 1st degree murder and his sentence given. Upon appeal of the sentence, it was later decided by 2 of the 3 judges that the sentence is justified and that the accused shall do the sentence. HOWEVER, one of the judges voted that there was reasonable doubt as to whether or not Took commited murder because his actions could have only led to bodily harm but it was the victims body and reaction that caused her to die.

Almost at the same time there is a case in Canada that is almost exactly the same (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060512/min_chen_parole_060512/20060512?hub=Canada). This case invovles Min Chen (23), a chinese citizen studying in Canada that confesses to the murder of a 9 year old girl, whom was suffocated with a towel while fleeing her household. Apparently he was charged with first degree murder but plead to 2nd degree murder and was sentenced on his plea. Supposedly he was in the process of kidnapping her to ask for a ransom to get $25,000 so that he could use the money to buy an 'arranged marriage' to stay in Canada. Guess returning to China in shame after failing out of school was so bad that kidnapping actually seemed like a good idea. This article stated gives his sentence that was put down today.

NOW, the similiarities are interesting in that both of the guilty parties are 22 or 23, the guilty parties are both of chinese discent, both commited the crime and hid the bodies, both said that the deaths were unintentional and accidental (one judge for Took even said that there was reasonable doubt in the death of the victim), the victims are young females in the range of 8 to 9 years of age, both victims were strangled, both knew their attackers.

NOW for the differences...whereas Chen pleaded down to 2nd degree murder in Canada, he got an automatic life sentence in jail with an eligibility of parole after 15 years. Took, on the other hand, in Singapore has gotten death by hanging. The appeal that his family and himself undertook was to have the sentence reduced from 1st degree murder and the automatic sentence of death to a sentence of life imprisonment. Interesting how one gets an automatic life sentence while the other has to fight for a life sentence in a different country, even though the offences are pretty much identical.

Is the punishment justified? Is Took's sentence too harsh, or is Chen's sentence too relaxed? I really dont know the answer to that one, nor do I really bother to go into depth. All I know is that I find it interesting that two cases like this happened at opposite ends of the world, hit the media eye and were close to identical in such a short span of time...I mean, it wasnt like the cases were 2 years apart, but only separate by a few months.

Though one thing I found interesting was the comment that the lawyer made suggesting that after Chen's release from prison in Canada, he would be deported back to China where the Chinese gov't would then take matter into their own hands and decide if Chen was able to return to society. Not only do I find it strange that a country would punish an individual after they have already been punished in another country, but I wonder what would happen if it was discovered that Chen's possible fate in China would be execution for the murder of the girl? would Canada still deport him back to China, knowing that they are sending him to his death, or would they allow him to stay in Canada? That is something that will be interesting to see in the, well not so near, future. At least 15 years, that is.

PS IF anyone knows how I can get all that personal information stuff about me on the right hand of my screen to stay up at the top of the screen and not down below my oldest post, please leave me a comment and tell me...it is driving me crazy and I am so computer unfriendly I have no clue as to how to fix it...THANKS!

Ducks Take to The Skies

I knew the Ducks could do it. GAME 4: ANA 4, COL 1. Dont get too cocky, Ducks. You got one more game to play, and then when you win that you go up in the score boards and put your bills to the grind stone and get some more competition. But, keep your hearts going and you will succeed.*G*

Which is better?

I came across this article online today and, at first I just was giving it a passing glance and all, but then I came across one paragraphed quote in the article that got me thinking. By the sounds of the article, the protesters want the new conservative Canadian Gov't to reopen the abortion laws of Canada and change them. But the tone of the article, I am guessing they are not interested in making the laws more relaxed and making it easier to get an abortion.

"I think there is a growing concern, and I think it comes around the fact that there are a lot of women stepping forward now," Vellacott said Thursday "These are women that have actually had abortions and they feel they really had no choice, they were not properly informed. There is a growing awareness of unwanted abortions in the country, wherein men harass, badger, coerce"

Are the protesters and lobbyists sure they fighting for the right thing? sounds like what they are wanting is more protection for the women that dont want to have abortions instead of stopping abortions completely. After all, it could be said that to stop the men from pressuring the women to have abortions is to make it illegal to have abortions. But, then what about the women that are not being pressured but really want an abortion due to certain situations (rape) or maybe when the abortion is agreed upon by both members of the relationship (both are not ready at the moment for a child). By making abortions legal, you get to cover the rights of all the women (willing and unwilling) to have an abortion. I think what is needed here is more strength on the females part to say to the person doing the badgering "No, you are wrong, this is my decision, go with it". If the man forces or coerces her into an abortion, should the woman then be allowed to take the man to court or press charges for possibly 'conspiracy to commit murder' or at least cause the woman bodily harm?

However, that being said, I sometimes wonder if there should be a line drawn where a mans responsibility to the child ends. If the guy says he is not ready maturily, financially or emotionally for a child and suggests and abortion, but the woman says no and that she wants the child. Then should the man be forced to pay for that child? He has expressed a desire not to have it, and yet she is holding him basically at gun point saying "your opinions dont matter, mine do, therefore you are going to have to pay and support this child". If that is the case, then should the man be able to press charges for extortion? If so, then wouldnt the Canadian Gov't be no better than thugs making sure that the guy pays for something that he did?

Granted, there was an act done by the two parties that resulted in the conception of this life, and granted both are responsible for that life. However, if the guy isnt ready for that responsibility and the girl goes ahead with it, or vice versa, then why force the responsibility on the other person? but, then again, that just opens the whole can of worms concerning 'if the guy wants the baby and the girl says no, can she abort or does she have to go to term?' and all those other nasty questions that exist in life that some people glaze over. Sometimes, I wonder, if there can ever be peace in the world.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060511/abortion_activists_060511/20060511?hub=Canada

What is happening?

When I was a kid of 14-15 I remember doing little stupid things. I remember sneaking a few bottles of beer from my parents christmas party, taking them to a friends house and having a couple each then lying about where a couple of bottles went. I remember sneaking into the kitchen when my family had friends over that drank beer and taking the empty bottles of beer, filling them with water and then resealing them with the twist off caps and putting them back in the fridge and laughing when I heard the guests exclaim that they like visiting my parents because the beer never seems to run out. Then laughing harder when they took a pull of a nice cold beer and got beer tasting water. Then, of course, faking innocence when asked if it was me but sort of hinting that I saw my brother poking around the fridge. All these are fairly innocent and just joking crimes.

I then read an article like this:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060509/bank_robbery_suspects_060509/20060509?hub=Canada
and have to shake my head and wonder what the hell is wrong with kids these days that they go and do something like this! I mean, am I the only one here that is thinking that the kids are on a downward slide to stupidity when this sort of thing happens not once, not twice but possibly 7 times! I mean, where are the parents? if the bank robbery was successful and the kids came home with thousands of dollars, why werent the parents scratching their heads when the kids either walked in with a new TV and DVD with Playstation or even just had a bank account that was growing in the thousands by the day. IF the bank robbery wasnt successful and the tellers simply laughed at the kids, then why werent the police hunting them down and we hear about it on the news?

Personally I think that the robberies were unsuccessful. I am thinking that the youth went into the bank without masks. Have you ever tried walking into a bank these days in Canada with a ski mask or even a bike helmet on? You dont get a few steps before you have the security guards coming towards you and if you make it to the front counter, I would hope that the banks have enough security and sense to ask you to remove your mask before doing any transaction whatsoever. If not, then I really need to think about withdrawing all my money from the banks and burying it in my back yard cause it would be safer there. So, for the individuals to get to the teller and hand them the note, they had to have their faces clear, which means that unless they are a master of disguise and can make really good imitation faces, they had to have been seen on camera. So, after the first time they went to the teller, handed them a note, which I am thinking said something to the effect of "I have a bomb, give me all your money". When no weapons were shown, would a bank teller really hand over all their cash because a young kid walked up to them and handed them a note? I mean, I know kids are supposedly very indimidating these days and very persuasive writers, but come on now!

The scary part of this whole ordeal, is that with the way that youth justice has been going recently, these kids are going to get away with a few months in minimum security, if not just a juvenille detention centre, and then they will be out on the streets and when they turn 18 their record will be deleted and it will never have happened. Nice message that will be sent out to their peers and society. I hope that this is a sign to the justice system that we are getting a bit laxed in our dealings with people and that more responsibility for their actions needed to be paid.

Duck Watch

Ok, I missed the first play off game of my Mighty Ducks because of some unforeseen work circumstances, but managed to see part of game 2.

First game score, 5-0 for my Mighty Ducks! Ducks rock and RULE!

2nd game score, 3-0 for the Mighty Ducks! Oh yeah baby! can it get any more sweeter than that!

DUCKS DUCKS DUCKS!!!!!

Looking Back

"And the King and the Queen went back to the green, but you can never go back there again" - Billy Joel 'Scenes from an Italian Restaurant' -

This is so true and is becoming more and more apparent to me by the day. A long time ago (well, only 4-5 years ago, but to some that could be construed as a long time ago) but not in a galaxy far far away, I had mentioned to a good friend of mine that I was jealous because she had just gotten a new cable package that had Deja View on and she could watch the A-Team every single day at a certain time. I went into detail on how it was a great show and all. Well, she surprised me 2 months later with about 5 tapes full of A-Team episodes that she had taped just for me. I was thrilled and pretty much ran home with these tapes under my arm like a kid coming out of the post office with his new decoder ring that he had been waiting ages for. Once I got home I popped a tape in and started to watch my first episode of A-Team that I had not watched in, gosh, nearly 20 years. I was shocked at the show. Had it gotten so bad and unbelieveable in just those 20 years? There were so many things in the show that the characters did that, in my youth, I said to myself "yeah, that is so true" and now, as an adult watching the show, I was shaking my head going "you have GOT to be kidding!"

The A-Team had the same AK-47 assault rifles that I remember, and they used them the same way (point, fire a few shots and dont even bother to aim) and they hit their targets and I remember as a kid wishing I was a sharp shooter like they were. Also, the bad guys always put up their hands as soon as they were captured. No fuss, no worries, no fighting just a zen realization that their dastardly plans were foiled and that no matter what they did they were going to get caught so they might as well surrender now instead of hurting everyone. Also, they always seemed to have the most amazing toys and knowledge. I remember hearing Hannibal say to B.A. "the bad guys will be coming over those hills in 3 hours time, we need an assault vehicle" and B.A. would grumble some "I pity the fool" comment, grab Murdoch by the scruff of the neck and walk into a barn or shed. Then, they would walk into a barn/shed where you saw an old rundown vehicle, either a dune buggy or car that was so old looking that you felt the tires were going to fall off and after a couple of welding torch shots with sparks flying, metal hitting the ground, tanks/sheets of metal/spikes and other items being grabbed, they would roll out this monster truck of an assault vehicle, complete with gun turrets and bazooka access ports and start firing like there is no tomorrow that no one could touch.

Now, as the adult, I look at what they did and really ask questions. Like, how did they always manage to fire the rifles, never get hit and always manage to either hit just the vehicles close enough to the bad guys to startle them but never really hitting any of them? or why is it that these bad guys could be part of a multimillion dollar drug/extortion enterprise which would probably get them close to 20-40 years in prison but two shots in the sand 2 feet from them by the A-Team has them putting up their hands and surrendering when you figure that even now the criminals wont throw down their weapons and surrender until they have at least 2 bullets in their legs, or even one in their gut? have our criminals gotten harder and much stronger, or were we that weak in the 80's that this sort of thing happened? As for the vehicles that they managed to throw together how was that possible? I mean, I have seen Pimp My Ride or American Chopper or those heavy metal mechanic shows that are on the Discovery Channel (mainly thanks to the metal head cooks that I work with and not by choice) and they take days, or even months, to take a half decent ride and make it something better. We are talking marginally better, not take a dead vehicle and make it into a fully working death machine. Now, since the A-Team were military trained experts and Colonels, Sargents and all those high ranking military personel, I can sort of believe that they have the knowledge to take a vehicle and turn it into a fully functional assault vehicle, but to put it together in 3 hours with no real items (or at least all they needed just happened to be in the barn) is a little stretch since guys with a fully functional garage equip with tools at their disposal take hours to slightly improve a vehicle.

Then, another TV show came into my possession that brought me back to the 80's. I just bought a whole bunch of DVD tv shows since I have no TV in camp so figure I would start watching shows that I enjoyed but missed the beginnings of. I bought The Greatest American Hero, since I remembered it as being such a great show and all. Now this one I can believe a bit better since it is about a superhero outfit so I can believe that he can do all the things that he does, but there are some things that have happened in the first 4 episodes that have me again shaking my head. For instance, in one episode one of the main characters (Bill Maxwell, FBI agent) takes a bullet in the back of his lower calf which is a through and through (since Hinkley comes up and looks at he wound and says that the bullet when in and exited his leg). Though I didnt see the bullet go in, the blood pour out or anything like that, I can assume it is in the lower back calf because he was running from the shooter when it happened so it had to enter the back and Hinkley had a tourniquet put on him just below the knee, so it either entered the calf or in the foot. The gun that was used was from a hit man that we saw and it was an assault rifle. No little 9mm bullet here. We are talking full fledged automatic assault AK-47 style rifle (what is it with AK-47s and the 80's? was the market flooded with them or what????) that, earlier in the show, put burger sized holes in a regular car door. I have no problem with him getting shot, the thing that had me laughing was that he got hit, rolled down on the ground, sat up with his gun and fired a clip at the shooter before the fire fight stopped. OK, shock and adrenaline could have held the pain away for him to do that. THEN, we fast forward to seeing him with a crutch and a bandage on his forehead from when he fell, so we can assume that a medic took a look at his wound and bandaged it up. 2 hours later we see him walking into a restaurant, after getting a fresh through and through, with only a cane, talking to the bad guys (who he ticks off) and then 1 hour after that he is running from a vehicle with his shot leg and seems to be outrunning it. Figure that Hinlkly has the super powers, not Maxwell.

The other thing that had me giggling was the state of Hinkley's students. They are supposed to be the misfits, the outcasts, the 'special ed class'. They all talk like Bronx New Yorkers or Marlon Brando hopefuls. They are all dressed in a fashion that if the rejects of todays society wore those clothes the parents of them would be happy and thrilled to see them so clean cut. Even the class tramp is wearing and outfit that would be considered too conservative for even the most prissy and prudish girl in my high school class (and that was early 90s!).

Have we all changed that much in the 20 years from the 80's? Has society taken such a down side that the shows are sooo different? is it just me to have changed my ways of looking at the world? or, was TV so strict and censored back then that if they actually showed the truth of the world and what happened people would be offended and all? I guess it is true, that if you go back to the green, you can never really go back again.

Canadians and our coffee...

now I have read it all. At first I thought it was funny how a study came out about 8 months ago concerning the greenhouse effect and global warming put together by the ecological people of canada that stated that if the trends continue and warming keeps going, the canadian past time of hockey will be greatly effected. That is one way to get canadians to sit up and listen. They tried the health tactic, tried to show that warming could shift the balance of food production (arctic would become the breadbelt where the breadbelt now would turn to desert), and they even tried the "it is your house, lets keep it clean" approach to little avail. Now, they turn to the one thing that hurts canadians the most, hinder our hockey life style.

Then I read this were the Tim Horton's chain is now branching out to the war torn countries of the world. Which has me wondering, is the chain branching out because they want to increase their market value to the world, or are they branching out because they know that over seas are canadian soldiers stationed there and they cant live without their daily dose of a 'police mans breakfast' (cup of coffee and a donut). I even got a sort of strange giggle in my head concerning the training that these potential Timmy Ho's workers are going through. They have to learn how to diffuse hostage situations and learn first aid in case someone loses an arm? That would put a new twist on the application process huh? under "education" and before "work experience" there would be a nice list of qualifications with the check mark places for "bomb disposal knowledge", "hostage negotiation", "weapons use and knowledge", "hand to hand combat knowledge". Hope Tim's is going to be paying more than minimum wage for these people. I wonder who they are going to get signing up for this? those just out of the army, finished their tours of duty and looking for a non-stress filled job to go to?*G*

70 people already are going through the training for the 41 positions. That is quite impressive. Guess it just goes to show that us Canadians take things seriously. Our hockey, our beer and our coffee.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060505/hortons_candidates_kandahar_060505/20060505?hub=Canada

Culture Clash or Culture Excuse?

I have often had debates and discussions with people concerning what happens in different cultures as compared to the ones that you are in. Like when I voiced my opinion in the changing of a countries laws that allowed capital punishment to my girlfriend and was told that other countries or cultures should not meddle in the way that other countries and cultures are run, but then when I asked about should we meddle in the state of Malaysia where temples are being destroyed by the ruling gov't because of religious prejudice, I was told that she was taking the fifth and would not comment. It is often hard to suggest how much people should or should not assimilate into the other countries that they are going into. I can see that most people want those immigrating to their country to take up the customs and cultures of the new country. After all, it does make for an easier life and living conditions when everyone is on the same page and we are all doing the same thing. Boring, perhaps, but still nice. But, then again, being the Canadian that I am, I am also for the whole freedom to do as you like as long as it does not hurt anyone in the process. If I want to wear a kilt down main street in the dead of winter to show off my nobby knees and scottish heritage then no one should take me aside and say "men dont wear dresses in this country, you must change". Then, stories like the one below come along that make me shake my head and wonder.

This is a story of a 7 year old boy from the Philippines who was reprimanded in school for eating with a fork and spoon, as they do in the Philippines, instead of a knife and fork, as we do here in canada. The boy was removed from his classmates as punishment. When the mother called to question this she was told that 'this is Canada and here in Canada you should eat the way Canadians eat.'

Personally this takes me back to the time when I was in grade school myself and a young boy (no not me) was removed from his classmates as punishment for eating with a straw and fork. Injust and cruel, right? I mean, just cause you eat with a straw and fork does not make you a criminal. However, it does when you are eating your food by pressing and compacting the food into the straw using the tines of the fork and then shooting the food, spit ball fashion, into the air and trying to catch it into your mouth. Still, cruel and unjust to remove him from the classmates.

The thing that got me is in the end of the one article suggested that (my thoughts are put in between the astri) "If the investigation finds the school board at fault, Niemi hopes this will lead the school board to apologize to the family **ok, just and fair** and the Filipino community **going a little far on this, but ok, can accept this**, review its race-relations policy **stretching it a bit, but yes to stop this from happening again the race relations policy should be looked at and perhaps teachers given new insight into the whole culture mixture** and provide the family with monetary compensation. ** WHAT??!?!??! come on now, what the hell does someone need monetary compenation for???**" I mean, it wasnt like the boy has been removed from a class that was training him for the future and he is now losing out on major career choices. He was asked to eat alone. Perhaps it was because he was loading his food onto his fork and then catapulting it into his mouth. Aside from embarrassment, which we all get growing up and it perhaps taught him to be a bit more accepting of other cultures because he knows now what it is like to be singled out for a small little thing, what has he suffered with?

Personally I have been subjected to being giggled and laughed at when I eat. When I was living in New Zealand for an educational exchange for a year my host family at the beginning laughed at me because I would hold my fork in my left hand to cut my food and then put my knife down and use my right hand to work the fork to get food to my mouth. They all used their left hand for their fork, right for their knife and only that for the whole meal. They would squash their peas onto their fork underside and transfer it to their mouths where I used my fork like a shovel to move peas to my mouth. I guess at sometimes they thought it was disgusting and strange, but they let me be. However, when my host sister copied me once her mother yelled at her "THAT is not how we taught you to eat at the table young lady!" while I was at the table and in plain hearing of this outburst. I was embarrassed slightly and then for one day tried to change my habit, but found it cumbersome and that night realized that how I eat is a part of who I am and therefore no one should take that away from me. So, unless the poor boy is making a huge mess in the lunch room and shovelling food down his face and getting it all over the others at the table, he shouldnt be forced to change.

Now, however, I am curious as to what actually happened in the lunchroom. I was once a kid and I was once reprimanded in schools for things that I had done. Everytime that I was embarrassed and told my parents the story, I usually found a way to glaze over my faults about the situation and make it sound like I was the innocent little angel and they were the evil bullys out to discredit my name and make me look bad. So, I wonder how exactly he was eating because as you can see in the one picture with the link, he is eating with decorum and taste. Though, if I was in front of a camera, reenacting the scene, I would definitly be a tasteful and polite young man. But, this is something that might never be known since there are always three sides to the issue "their side, your side and then the truth" and the truth is often that hardest to hear and learn about.

I wonder if the truth really is a family trying to get a few bucks from the growing number of frivilous law suits that are striking Canada these days. As much as I hate to say it, I am wondering if it is true. This is also not a case of me attacking immigrants, this is a case of me wondering about greedy people. They could have been Canadian born citizens or could trace their lineage back 400 years to the first english colonist who set foot on this country, I still scratch my head everytime a person in Canada screams out "that person embarrassed me, I need $300,000 to make me feel better!"

Guess this is just another case of cultures clashing and people trying to make life livable. Do we all conform to one way in life so that we can all feel comfortable knowing that we are the same, or can we take our own way to life and be happy that our own little idiocyncracies make for an interesting way to life.



http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n050585A.xml
http://www.westislandchronicle.com/pages/article.php?noArticle=6063