you killed someone, now go to your room!

Yet another horrible sentence for a crime that has been commited. Guy drinks way over the legal limit, kills another and gets 2 years of house arrest. My personal favorite was the defence lawyer that says him being in house arrest will allow him to have addictions treatment that is not available to him in prison. Now, I may be out of reality here but I am thinking that if I am in prison for 14 years, fearing for my life of being raped by huge men named 'Bubba', or being jumped and beaten for the jello pudding cup on my plate at dinner and it was drinking that got me into this mess, you can bet you sweet ass that I am going to get over my addiction really really quickly. Especially since I wont be drinking a drop of booze for 14 years. I do agree with Faye MacRitchie comment saying that when you are a kid and you steal a candy bar or talk back to your parents, you are grounded. An oops that causes the death of another person is a little more serious than stealing a candy bar or speaking badly to your parents.

Here the Canadian gov't is trying to fight off an early election to keep the Conservatives in power. I say leave them alone and let them clean up the legal justice system so these stupid sentences dont keep happening. One can only dream...just dream.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070330/madd_sentence_070330/20070330?hub=Canada

Drunk driver's house arrest falls short: MADD
Updated Fri. Mar. 30 2007 9:06 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

Two years of house arrest is too light a sentence for a New Brunswick man who drank 24 beers, then smashed his car into a cyclist, say the victim's family and advocates against drunk driving.
Peter Leon Howe, 42, pleaded guilty to drinking an entire case of beer, plus half a bottle of whisky, while partying at a relative's house in Fredericton on July 15, 2006.

Howe turned down offers to stay over at the home, then drove back to his room at the Budget Motel. On the way, he swerved onto the shoulder and collided with cyclist Robbie MacRitchie, killing the 23-year-old.

Howse fled the scene after striking MacRitchie. When he was eventually arrested, his Breathalyzer reading showed 140 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood -- approaching twice the legal limit of 80 milligrams.

The victim's mother said Howe's punishment -- handed out in a Fredericton court on Thursday -- does not match the crime.

"With our own kids, if they -- Robbie for instance -- did something wrong, which didn't meet with our approval, he was confined to the house and he had the car keys taken away from him," Faye MacRitchie, told reporters outside the court. "But he didn't kill anybody."

Mothers Against Drunk Driving also slammed the sentence, calling it a slap on the wrist and saying it lacks the teeth to deter others from following Howe's example.

Lisa Howse of the Fredericton chapter of MADD, said the group wanted Howe to receive the maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.

"Until we start handing down stronger sentences people are going to continue to do it," she told CTV's Canada AM on Friday.

Howse described the reaction in the courtroom when the sentence was handed down as one of shock.

"I believe people were shocked, because when the judge started speaking, he sounded like he was going to give a strong sentence. Then when he began talking about the two-years-less-a-day house arrest, his parents were a little anguished, I believe, and his friends were outraged," Howse said.

"It was hard to sit there and know what they're going through and to know there's nothing you can do."

She acknowledged that Howe apologized to his victim's family, but said his actions spoke louder than his words.

"To know he's living at home, he's having dinner with his family, to know he's having some contact with the community, it's hard for the family."

His lawyer Ron Morris said the sentence is in the best interest of society, because it will permit him to receive addictions treatment not available in prison.

Howse suggested it's time to ensure such programs are available in the provincial prison system.

no great thoughts...

No great thoughts or depth to this one. Just got this feeling of peace and refreshed cleansing feeling. I finally opened the windows for the first time in the entire winter months and have some nice cool breezes blowing through the place. I can almost feel the dank dreary feeling of this place being washed away with the warm breezes. Warmed up today to +8'C with clear skies and warm sun. Ahhhh, nothing like a nice spring breeze after a long cold winter to really make the place feel nice. Can't wait til it is summer and I can sleep with the windows open. The warm summer breeze, the calming honk of the cars and the buzz of people on the streets below.

Again, no great thoughts...just....peace...

desensitized or just plain heartless?

While scanning through the newspaper here in Canada, I saw this article about a man in London that commited suicide on a webcam chat room. At first I wondered why a persons suicide in another country was being reported here in Canada because, as gruesome as this may sound, suicide is a tragic thing but it happens all the time in other countries, as well as your own, but why report it in different countries. This time it was being reported not only because it was exceptionally odd (in that it was broadcast in a webchat room and people not only witnessed it but actually egged the poor individual on to his final moments of life), but because here in my province of Alberta, we are actually known for the highest suicide rate in Canada. Though, I remember hearing somewhere that the NWT/Nunavet actually had the highest suicide rate per capita, perhaps Alberta might hold highest suicide rate in numbers. Though, lets face it, if you have a province of 40,000 and 4,000 (1 in 40 people will kill themselves) of them commit suicide, that is worse than a province with 4,000,000 people and 40,000 (one in 400 people will commit suicide), true?

The numbers given by the one article I read stated:

BY THE NUMBERS
Suicide statistics in Alberta
- Total number of suicides (1999-2003): 2,233.
- Average number of suicides per year (1999-2003): 440.
- Male-to-female ratio of nearly 3-to-1.
- Alberta average rate of suicide per 100,000 (1999-2003): 22.4.
- National average rate of suicide per 100,000 (1999-2003): 17.9.
- Most at risk age group: 35-55 years.
- Methods of suicide in 2003: 35% hanging, 22% overdose, 18% firearms, 12% carbon monoxide poisoning.
- Men most likely to hang themselves, women most likely to overdose.

Regardless of your personal belief in suicide, the one thing that got me the most about this article was the state in which the chat room treated such a thing. It was reported that some people actually egged him on about how to kill himself. A few people tried to stop him, but some of them actually goaded him into doing it. Wouldnt that action be the same as murder, or at least accomplice to commit a murder? if you see someone with a gun to their head and you do nothing but in fact urge them to do it, shouldnt that be a crimial offence? If you put a person, or see a person, in a state of mental unbalance and they come up with a horrible way to hurt themselves and you actually plant more ideas and push them (not physically, but mentally) shouldnt you be accountable for that action? I am not saying that you put the gun to their head, pulled the trigger and ended their life, but you did help. Just as in the Canadian Criminal Code, if you are part of a crime and a different crime than that which was intended is commited, all those participating in the crime should be held accountable. In this case, the people who egged him on should be countable as 'an accomplice to commit murder'.

Are we so desensitized to crime that we think the internet is a game? is it just a movie that we can watch on the screen without having any consequences or responsibilities? People post up fake internet sites to have some fun though not realizing that people on the other end might get hurt. Granted, I have to admit that I am guilty of that one in that I have put up some internet sites with my true stats and words but with the intention of only getting an ego boost to see how many people would respond to my ad. Though not the best idea considering I got no bites, even when I tried to dress up the words a bit to make me sound more appealing. But why is it that when some people get into a chat room or something, they all of a sudden become a 'telephone tough guy'. No consequences for your actions, no response to your bravado, it all just becomes a game.

No sense I guess in me asking these questions because deep down I cant even answer these questions in my own mind and soul. It is almost like at a certain moment when something is happening, I give my mind to the mob mentality and all becomes a blur. I, for a brief moment, am not a single voice screaming out my own opinion and belief, but become a cog in the great machine of destruction called the mob. 'It wasnt me that did it, your honour...it was the mob that did that action.' The single snowflake will never claim responsibility for the avalanche.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23390052-details/Chatroom+users+'egged+on+father+who+killed+himself+live+on+webcam'/article.do

Courtepatte conclusion...of sorts.

Well, yet another one of the people accused in the kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of Nina Courtepatte has been sentenced. Not really much to say in the sentencing of 21 year old Joseph Laboucan, of Fort St. John, B.C. to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years. Not really sure if it means 'life' if you go in at 21 and get out at 46 for possible parole. I mean, life is life, not just a stint in jail. Figure the parole years in prison should be sort of moveable. If you are a 45-50 year old going in then yes, 25 years for parole is good, but if you are 21, then life is nothing more than just a small stint in your life since you can still come out and live a life of either another horrible crime or straighten up and make the best of the last 40 years of your life.

I wonder if criminals that go in for life, when they come out on parole and work for say 20 years with a clean nose, can they get a Canada Pension, and would it be rated against their time in prison? I mean, take this guy for example, he goes to prison at 21, lives 25-30 years under tax payers dollars to stay alive with a jail cell, 3 meals a day, and possibly TV, internet, education at his disposal (hell, he can go for his masters degree while in prison at tax dollars expense), comes out at 46/51, has seen the error of his ways and works for 19-14 years at a job and then retires. Would Canada pension look at in the way of "you have only worked for 19 years of your life in Canada, therefore we are giving you 1/6th of what a person that worked their whole life would get" or would they say "yep, canadian citizen, worked, here you go, same as what a normal citizen would get"?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070323/Courtepatte_case_070323/20070323?hub=Canada

UPDATE: Was talking about this case with a friend of mine and he came up with another point that he was disturbed about, and now I am sort of as well. Turns out that there is a 'faint hope clause' in the Canadian Criminal Code (Section.745.6) which states that a person doing a life in prison can apply for early release after only serving 15 years of his current sentence. The reason it is called the 'faint hope clause' is because people apply for this early release but only a very few people ever are granted this. Still, it is rather unnerving to know that a person can be sentenced to life in prisonment and still apply for early release after only 15 years.

dont have to be old, to make a difference

I was watching the news last night when there was a brief spot on about a 'mac and cheese dinner' that was being held by the ladybug foundation. Normally I dont listen to much about these sorts of stories cause it usually involves things like a $150/plate dinner and it is being held to support either the town council and their stupid raises or some other stupid thing (raising money to help lost hockey players who have received sports injuries and can't make their usual million dollar salaries). However, when it was mentioned that the founder of this organization was only 10 years old, I had to sit up and take notice. I mean, at 10, who here had founded a non-profit organization that has raised millions for homelessness across Canada? At 10 I know I was still enjoy summer vacations, swinging from tree branches and spending my time tossing grass bombs at the girls next door in the hopes that one would throw one back at me showing that they liked me. However, this little girl named Hannah Taylor has taken life by the horns, seen a problem and instigated a response to that problem. Definitely something to look into if you are serious about helping the homeless and seeing about putting some spare money that you have to good use. Check it out, if not for the homelessness, for the cool music that is on the website and insteresting read on it.

http://www.ladybugfoundation.ca/

Talk about team spirit!

I have always been a debater about the whole "women have a higher tolerance for pain" and the pros to this debate usually state that "women give birth, that is painful and they do it so therefore women have a higher tolerance for pain". However, I always counter back saying that while women do give birth, the body naturally releases a form of pain killer that dulls the pain so that while they might not be given any synthetic drug from the doc, there is always that natural drug to help ease the pain. Also, I was talking to a nurse in the maternity ward and she was suggesting that there is some research done that has implied that the woman, at the time, will experience pain but after the experience is over and the child is born, the bodies (either physical or psychological) defense mechanisms kick in and the woman starts to forget the pain that she just experienced.

So while I am not saying that women handle pain less well than men, or that men are tougher than women, I do take the position that pain, like all other things in life, is very individualistic. To say that "68% of women handle pain better than men, so therefore women handle pain better than men" is about as misleading as saying "68% of women spend $400 or more on shoes every 6 months, therefore all women spend $400/6 months on shoes". I know some women and men that will sprain their wrist and will finish their job, walk to the docs, ask for a quick splint and be on the job site within the hour to finish the day without complaining about pain; I also know a few men and women that get a splinter and complain about the pain all day long and look for time off work.

That being said, THIS woman gets my standing ovation applause. I mean, talk about not only your team spirit and dedication to a group of students. When they say that people lack dedication, this really isn't a good piece of evidence for that argument. Lady gives birth and then shows up at a game to cheer on her girls that she has coached. To her, I give a hearty salute and standing ovation for her dedication.


http://healthandfitness.sympatico.msn.ca/U+of+Nebraska+womens+basketball+coach+attends+game+hours+after+giving+birth/News/ContentPosting.aspx?isfa=1&newsitemid=37834027&feedname=CP-ODDITIES&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc

U of Nebraska women's basketball coach attends game hours after giving birth
14/03/2007 11:09:00 AM

GRAND FORKS, N.D. (AP) - About five hours after giving birth to her first child, University of Nebraska at Kearney women's basketball coach Carol Russell was out of the hospital and on the bench to help coach her players in the North Central Region basketball tournament.

"I could have watched the Webcast, but I wanted to be there for the girls because they've been working so hard for this all year," Russell said.

The University of North Dakota beat the Nebraska-Kearney Lopers 108-75 for the regional championship Monday night, to advance to the NCAA Division II tournament in Kearney, Neb.
Russell said her team seemed tired in the second half. And being tired was something she could relate to.

"I usually stand up the whole game, but I didn't have the energy," said Russell, 35, who's in her fifth year as head coach.

Russell had permission from doctors to attend the game. She arrived at the game early in the first half and sat on the team bench. Assistant coach Tim Connealy took over most of the coaching duties while Russell said she provided mostly "input and encouragement."

"I was about three minutes late," Russell said. "I'm always on my kids about being late, but I guess they understood why I was."

Russell said her arrival at the game caused double takes by players, coaches and referees, who knew she had just had a baby.

Newborn Isaac bounced in at 6 pounds, 14 ounces.

"She comes to town, has a baby and goes back to coach the game," said Grand Forks Mayor Mike Brown, an obstetrician who was one of Russell's doctors at Altru Hospital.

"She was due, so she hand-carried her OB records with her to travel," Brown said. "It makes you smile."

Russell said she gave birth at about 1:45 p.m. Monday.

"I wasn't really thinking about the game at that point," she said. "It's the birth of my first child, so obviously that came first."

But shortly before game time, "I started feeling better," she said, and decided to go to the game.
Russell said hospital officials gave Isaac some UND Fighting Sioux outfits.

"We're honored the baby chose our community," said Brown, the city's mayor.

Russell was slated to check out of the Grand Forks hospital on Tuesday afternoon. She planned to fly back to Nebraska with her team, her husband and Isaac. But she said the baby wouldn't be dressed in his new North Dakota baby clothes.

"That might be a little salt in wounds for my players, so I doubt it," Russell said.
Isaac may have a permanent reminder about his time in North Dakota, Russell said.

"My family is kidding me about naming him Dakota," Russell said. "We're still searching for a middle name, and that's an option."

BC fire fighters again..One step closer to discrimination

Oh I love this. Remember a day or two ago when I mentioned the fire fighters that were thinking of hiring only women and visible minorities but 'white men can still apply'? yeah, looks like they just got the thumbs up from the superiors and now just have to go through the BC human rights commission to get approval for this discrimination to take place. I wonder if this is just a sort of smoke screen rouse put on by the firefighters of BC. Here is how the story plays out. They get yelled at and have a bad reputation for being male chauvanist pigs due to having roughly 95% of their hired help as men. So, to show that they are nice nice they say "yep, gonna hire women and visible minorities because we see the error of our ways and will try to be nice". Then it goes to the BC human rights and they say "are you nuts? that is discrimination, we wont let it pass". So the firefighters then sit back, hire men again as business as usual and say "hey, we tried. The BC human rights commission said no, they are the bad guy, we arent".

I hope that this is the case, because the only other option is that the BC fire fighters want to do discriminational hiring, and the BC human rights will go along with it because it helps out the minorities and women. However, they don't look at the other side that says 'if we help out this group of people by making a policy to help them get hired, then we are hurting this other side of the group". This is new policy is no better than if any organization paid for the training and only hired caucasian men but said "minorities and women can still apply".

I just hope that the BC human rights commission has the common sense to see this dark side of this plan and do the right thing.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070316/firefighters_070316/20070316?hub=Canada

B.C. politicians want more female firefighters

Updated Fri. Mar. 16 2007 11:10 PM ET
Canadian Press

VANCOUVER -- A beleaguered B.C. fire department has been given the thumbs up by politicians to favour women and visible minorities when hiring.

Richmond, B.C., city council has approved a proposal for its fire rescue department to adopt an assisted hiring practice for its next recruitment campaign.

Rather than recruiting new firefighters directly out of training schools, the force wants to pay for women and minorities to attend the programs, said city spokesman Ted Townsend.

Townsend said traditionally the training schools don't produce the ethnicly diverse group of graduates the department wants so it hopes to entice them to attend the program if it pays.

"We know this is going to take time," Townsend said. "But we've seen this kind of integration on other police forces and we know it can work."

Townsend said the city is still accepting applications from everyone and knows it can't fill all the vacancies with women or minorities.

"We are not going to compromise our standards," he said. "There are very rigorous standards that all firefighters have to meet and women and visible minorities will have to meet them as well."

Attracting women and minorities to a force that had its reputation blackened after allegations of sexual harassment two years ago will be a challenge, Townsend acknowledged, but he said the internal review prompted by those allegations led to massive changes within the department designed to make it more accommodating.

Townsend called the assisted hiring practice only one of many steps needed to move the department forward to representing Richmond's increasingly diverse population.

There are only two women and fewer than 10 visible minorities among the 206 firefighters in the Vancouver suburban community.

"That's completely out of whack with our city," Townsend said.

Visible minorities make up 60 per cent of Richmond's population and there's almost an even split between men and women overall.

The department now must gain the approval of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal to move forward with the plan.

If approved, the new recruitment campaign will begin in the spring.

another hijab debate

I guess this is what they say by 'slippery slope' effect. Once one person voices a human rights obstruction, then everyone out there with something in the same situation will jump on the band wagon to try to get the same 'justice'.

This case has so many pros and cons for either side of the situation that you can't really argue a 'no hijab' or 'yes hijab'. For example, one person would say "well she is going to be bringing in a weapon that can be taken by another criminal and used against her in a fight that could end in her death or serious injury". But then you can answer that with 'the guards come in with pepper spray, hand cuffs, billy clubs/night sticks or even hand guns that a prisoner can take away and use against them. Hell, the guards even have belts or shoe laces that can be used as whips or strangulation devices'. So, safety concern can be said that since they have those other weapons, why not allow a woman to wear a piece of clothing that her faith dictates? Though the code states that the guards can not wear neck ties (which I think should be standard in any office state simply because they are the worst things in the world and I really hate them), which is good. But to say "but the code doesnt state hijabs" is sort of odd to say. While I have not seen the code itself or read it, I am sure that it should be implied what is not allowed. I mean, if they say 'no neck ties' and leave it at that, why not ask "why can I not wear a neck tie?" answer "because someone might choke me to death with it" ok, so lets expand this. Loose article = choking death hazard. Hijab = loose article = choking death hazard. Ahhhh, so perhaps I should not be permited to wear a hijab. You might as well say "oh warden, according to your rules posted on the prison walls here, I am not allowed to bring in 'knives, guns or neck ties' but you didnt mention ice axes for climbing mountains! loop hole, thank you, now I am going to go and visit my gang buddy carrying these 3 ice axes who is in for a quadruple murder."

I like how she mentioned "but they didnt tell me til a week into my training course that I had to take off my hijab". Why didnt the officials mention before hand? ok, possibility here, it is mentioned that she was the first person to enter into the training course that wore a hijab. Perhaps the officials said to themselves "ok, she read the code, saw that she is not allowed a neck tie, she obviously has made the connection as to strangulation weapons and all so she is wearing the hijab out of course for her own reasons that we cant stop her, but when she comes to work or the course, she will remove it as per the code and regualtions" They give her a week to clue in, perhaps dropping hints in the training period such as saying "yes, while working in a prison environment you are not allowed neck ties or scarves because they can be used to kill you..yes, kill you...yes, you in the back, loose clothing to kill you" hoping that she will clue in hijab = loose clothing = strangulation weapon = death. She doesn't clue in, they mention it to her and all of a sudden it is a human rights violation. Or perhaps the officials really didn't dawn on what a hijab is and what it means. Maybe the instructors and officials thought that someone else was handling this case and after a week one of the higher ups, or instructors, kind of went up to the safety people and said "umm, excuse me, but if she wears a hijab, why can't I wear a neck tie?"

If the officials had said "oh, someone wearing a hijab is applying for the course. We won't allow loose clothing. She won't take it off due to religious reasons, so we won't grant her admitance to the course" then I am sure we would have been reading this case about 2 weeks earlier but saying "I was denied entry into a course based on my religious beliefs. That is discrimination" and this would be another sort of writing.

So, to put it bluntly, yes I would say that she should remove her hijab if she wants to continue in the course and training. If not for her own personal safety but for the safety of all those around her. Knowing the way that the sueing and negligence lawsuits have been these days, if she wins this, gets to wear the hijab and it is used to kill her and another inmate or guard, then all families will start sueing the gov't, prison, officials and everyone else for not protecting her. So, if not for her own safety, then for the safety of everyone else around her, she should remove the hijab if she wants to go into this profession. Yes, the officials should update the rules and regulations to include a more sound wording of the regulation (ie "no person shall wear any article of loose clothing on their head, arm or person that can be easiely removed and used against them or another as a weapon" which opens a new can of worms of "then, do I have to wear clothes since my shirt can be taken off and used to strangle someone?") or they can amend it to include and name every single item of clothing that they are not permitted to have on (ie "no person shall wear a neck tie, hijab, scarf/scarves, head band, leg warmers, wrist band, neck warmer, belaclava, toque, viking helmet, motorcycle helmet, judges robes, etc etc etc...). If they do the addition, then we might as well cut down an entire rain forest now and start making the paper to make that 3,000 page manual listing all the things on the face of the Earth that can not be worn.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070315/hijab_que_070315/20070315?hub=Canada

Quebec firm on hijab ban for prison guards

Updated Thu. Mar. 15 2007 6:50 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

A Quebec woman who was forced to choose between her hijab and her career is considering taking her case to the Human Rights Commission.

Sondos Abdelatif, 19, was given the ultimatum to withdraw from a training session at Montreal's Bordeaux Detention Centre or remove her headscarf.

Quebec's Public Safety Department is standing behind its decision to ban the hijab. The ministry, which is in charge of Corrections Services, said a headscarf could act as a strangulation device should hostile prisoners attack a guard while on patrol.

However, Abdelatif says if her headscarf was a problem, officials should have notified her sooner.

Abdelatif applied to become a corrections officer in November of last year. Her application included a complete portfolio with photos of her wearing a headscarf and there were no questions asked about her hijab at the time.

"I had my veil on and you could clearly see that I had my veil on," Abdelatif told CTV Montreal on Thursday.

Abdelatif completed her initial examination and was a week into her training before officials at the Bordeaux Detention Centre confronted her with the ultimatum.

"They just told me you either take it off, or you can't work here," Abdelatif said.

"It was kind of like they were telling me that I had nothing to offer, that I was good for nothing."
Female guards are required to wear their hair tied back and abstain from wearing ties, but there is no mention of hijabs in the prison's uniform policy.

According to Canadian and provincial correctional authorities, this is the first time that a woman who observes the Muslim custom has wanted to become a corrections officer in the province.

Abdelatif is upset she will not be given the chance to fulfill her career aspirations.

"I liked it a lot. I figured out that's what I want to do with my life," said Abdelatif.

She said she would like to have an open dialogue with the prison and the Public Safety Department before she takes her case to the Human Rights Commission.

Sarah Elgazzar, a spokesperson for the Canadian Council on American Muslim Relations, said the ministry should be willing to compromise.

"If there were security concerns they should have addressed the security concerns," Elgazzar told CTV Montreal.

"They should have said, 'Hey, look we're worried about you. We have your best interest in mind, is there a way that you can do this without endangering yourself?'"

Elgazzar reiterated there are specifically designed hijabs used by the Canadian armed forces that could be a compromise to this situation.

A spokesperson from the Public Safety Department said they are not considering alternatives to the ultimatum.

This recent incident has further fueled the debate about reasonable accommodation for minorities within Quebec.

An 11-year-old Ottawa girl was ejected from a soccer game in Quebec after she refused to remove her headscarf during the game in February.

The small town of Herouxville drew international attention when it adopted a declaration of "norms'' that tells immigrants how to fit in and forbids face coverings other than on Halloween.

In Montreal, men were banned from pre-natal classes at one Montreal community centre to accommodate Muslim, Sikh and Hindu women.

With files from the Canadian Press and a report by CTV Montreal's Tania Krywiak.

soap box rant - discrimination

*pulls out my soap box and stands up tall on it*

Yep, gotta bring out that soap box again. I mean, I just don't get it. Really, I don't get it at all. I mean, how can you do one thing, reward one person and then turn around and have a gov't agency do the complete opposite and make it legal? I do have a tendancy to sort of do a non-sequitor (doesn't follow, like 'all dogs have 4 legs, my cat has 4 legs, therefore my cat is a dog') and usually think that one thing is like another when it has only one thing in common but is a completely new situation. So, here is how I see it and let's see what the people (and by 'people' I mean Blue and maybe the one person named 'anonymous' that has left comments) think.

Just read this article (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070314/tribunal_damages_070314/20070314?hub=Canada) in the news were two black men were refused service in a bar in the Montreal area back in 2003 because they were 'bad for business' and the human rights commission just now found their rights to have been violated and bar, co-owner, busboy and waitress were ordered to pay $5000 in moral and $3000 in punitive damages plus legal fees the two men. Ok, good for the law. I agree with this one hundred percent. No one should be denied service or any sort of human dignity based on race, colour, creed, gender, sexual preference, height, weight, eye colour or any other physical, mental, fashion factor that they have. We are all human, we all have rights and we all have equal right to those rights. Reason why these men were denied service? It seems that there was a recent outbreak in 'black gang' related activities and the bar had a policy not to serve black individuals to try to keep the 'unwanted element' away from the bar. Little harsh and presumptious way of handling this situation and completely stupid. I mean, just because there is an increase in gang activity, and just because the increase means that more blacks might be arrested and charged, all of a sudden all black people must be barred from certain places cause they are a safety hazard? That is just plain stupid, immoral, unethical and just plain out moronic.

Now, we come to part #2 of this little soap box rant. An article from the past that I read a few months ago and followed for a bit and then it just sort of faded away when Anna Nicole Smith died, cause as you all know, her death is waaaay more important and newsworthy than a discrimination case. Four women in Richmond, B.C were hired by the fire fighters, they then quit and pressed charges against co-workers and the organization claiming that there was sexual harrassment, discrimination and general hostility towards them because they were female and "the City of Richmond failed to stop the harassment and even fostered a culture of discrimination against its female firefighters." (http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/12/15/bc-firefighter.html). Unfortuneatly, this case was thrown out of court and would not be heard because the Supreme Court of Canada decreed that this was directly related to their job and should be handled by the union arbitrator and not a court of law. Now, that strikes me as odd and down right useless considering that the unions these days have mutated from their past noble ideals of "workers banding together to stop the explotation of workers" and are more in the lines of "lets see how much we can pinch the companies and dig into their pockets to give to the workers who have become lazy and whiney".

Now, the thing that gets me to connect these two cases is the reaction of the Richmond Fire and rescue service does to this whole ordeal. They announce that they will now try to improve their image by hiring more 'women and visible minorities' into the force. (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/03/02/fire-service.html?ref=rss) I guess their reasoning is that the force was run by caucasian male thugs and they let a couple, females into the crowd and were harrassed. So by diluting the male thug population there will be equality. Since thugs only pick on the lesser of the population, increase the population, you increase the safety (safety in numbers and all that jazz).

Here is the problem. This, to my knowledge, has been happening for years and years already. I mean, when I was growing up I was hearing how caucasian male brothers of my friends were applying to the RCMP, fire fighters and EMT positions and were being told "sorry, we have all the spots filled, we need minorities or women now". Even where I work we have a quota of aboriginal to caucasian/ male to female ratio that has to be filled at all times. If we are under quota for more than a month, then those same union reps that were previous mentioned (the latter, not the former unions) start kicking up dust and screaming. There was even a time that people were saying that these organizations even had different hiring minimums for the different genders. So, hypothetically it would be argued that the RCMP said that men had to be over 5'10" tall (cause, lets face it, you are a 6'0", 220 lbs brute resisting arrest, a 5'0", 100lbs officer screaming 'freeze you are under arrest' better be packing a load of heat and aimed at the guy cause I dont think he is gonna stop) and be over 190lbs and be able to complete a certain fitness test. Whereas women might have to be over only 5'6" tall and be over 140lbs and do a fitness test but slightly lower than the men. They have them for the Olympics, they have them for boxing and other sports, so it wasn't that difficult for that belief to spread to the people that were being denied because they were caucasian whereas a shorter woman than the minimum was being let in. Hell, growing up I became accustomed to hearing the term "Affirmative Action" meaning "Discrimination" or "we hire natives first, caucasians second". Growing up my friends and my parents friends always joked that "if you were a female native with a speech disability and were pregnant, you could be CEO of this company within a week", though the scary part was you couldnt be CEO but you could be elevated to manager in a few days.

So, now what do we have. We have a bar that saw an increase in criminal activity (caused by black gang members) and to decrease that activity (stop the crime) and make their establishment a safer place they stop allowing the people of the criminal activity (blacks) into the bar. We also have a place hiring people (Richmond fire and rescue) that saw an increase in criminal activity (sexual harrassment) and now to stop that activity (stop the crime/harrassment) from happening they are stopping, or lessening, the population of that criminal influence (caucasian men). Now the two black men got $16,000 in damages for the discimintation. Wonder how much the hundreds of applicants that were denied jobs because the organization had to hire minorities over them will get if they go and sue for discrimination. I mean, the Richmond Fire and Rescue organization said that ""White men are still welcome to apply" because 'it is doubtful that we will be able to fill all the positions with women and visible minorities'. Now, in my mind that is like the bar saying "oh, black men can apply (come to the door and ask to be let in) but if the seats are all full of caucasians, I am sorry they won't be allowed in" And just because it just so happened that the seats in the bar were being held for caucasians that hadn't yet arrived yet, means that the two men were denied service in the bar, doesn't mean that the bar discriminated against the black men. No no, no discrimination there, just that they were allowing (hiring) only caucasian men at the time.

So, you can see my problem with this. On one hand, the law is telling us that we can not discriminate service or anything due to race, colour, creed, gender or religious beliefs. But then on the other hand the Fire Rescue organziation (a fully gov't run organization like the RCMP that isnt privitized) is telling us that they are allowed to disciminate in their hiring process.

To me, discrimination is pure and simple, black and white (I dont know, is that a pun?). I apply for a job, a woman applies for the same job. We both have the same educational qualifications but she has two years more experience than me, making her the ideal candidate but I get the job, THAT is discrimination. We both go for the job, same qualifications but I have two years more experience than she, she gets the job under 'female affirmative action' THAT is discrimination. Anytime anyone is hired into a job not because of experience or qualifications but simply because of a race, colour, religious belief or gender, THAT is discrimination. Anytime anyone is denied service at an establishment based on beliefs of a group of people and not the individuals own personal attributes or misdeeds, THAT is discrimination. No affirmative action, no minority enforcement/encouragement, no safety issues, it is down right discrimination. Just as it is wrong to deny entrance to a person into a bar because of the colour of their skin, so it is wrong to hire, or not to hire, someone based on the colour of their skin or because of what is between (or not between) their legs.

*climbs down quietly from the soap box, dusts it off and puts it away for another day*

I'll sue ya..that's what I'm gonna do!

Ever notice how we are getting more and more paranoid about allergies and sueing? I don't know if it is an international thing or just in Canada and the USA, but we have to put more and more warning signs on things warning people either not to do something stupid or to point out the obvious. I would say that "Weird Al" Yankovic has the right idea about why we have to put up these warning signs when he wrote the song "I'll Sue Ya":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIllRdSzSug

Ok, now since I am not allergic to peanuts or any other item around, I am not really sure if you are allergic to peanuts if you can eat other nuts like walnuts, cashews and stuff. But, the other day I was shopping and came across a sign that read "Allergen Alert: The products below may have come in contact with peanuts or other nuts." Ok, now when I read that I thought to myself that it was a wise thing to put since listed on many chocolate bars these days where a company makes non-peanut chocolate bars as well as peanut ingredient chocolate bars have to put down a warning saying "this product may or may not have come into contact with peanuts or peanut oil". Stops people with severe peanut allergies to think "oh yeah, no peanuts in Mars bars, I can eat those". But then I looked down and saw what the sign was posted over. It was an entire row of bulk bins of nuts. There were cashews, peanuts, macadamias, walnuts and pistachios. Now, call me crazy, but if you are allergic to nuts or peanuts or just one type of nut, would you really think it was wise to walk down a nut filled aisle and think to yourself "oh yeah there is a divider keeping the peanuts (or the nut you are allergic to) away from the nut I want. Of course I won't get sick"? Is there any sort of common sense left in the world that a court of law might actually sit back and look at a guy and say "you did something stupid, you got hurt and now you are sueing the company for you being an idiot? get out of my face!"

I just wish I was more computer friendly (or actually carried my digicam around with me constantly) to have taken a picture of that sign and all to post on the blog for all to see. Hmmm, I wonder, can I sue Dell or Windows cause they make a computer or software that I don't know how to operate and it ruins my self esteem, or hinders my job advancement because of it????

another TV show

I know, I know, I am horribly out of date when it comes to TV and all. But, let's face it, I work and live in an environment where it really isn't possible to be doing a lot of TV watching. However, on the one chance I did get to watch some TV (there was a hockey game on, the guys wanted to watch it and I was forced to as well) and saw this commercial for a show that gave a website. Everytime I see a website on TV, I have to remind myself to go and check it out. Everything from Cialis to shows, just out of curiousity. Only problem is that my memory is so poor that I usually forget the website. This one, however, was one that sort of stuck and it only took me 2 days to remember to go and check it out.

http://www.cbc.ca/testthenation/

just wanted to see what the deal with that one is out of curiousity cause they were talking about testing tattoo artists against surgeons. There is even a 'mental gym' on the site that you can do a few questions and see how many you get right. Unfortunetly it doesnt give you a precise score of IQ, but it does give you a feel for exactly what is on an IQ test.

I might go into detail about my dislike for all standardized tests like MCAT, LSAT, IQ tests and that sort of thing later, but for now, just thought I would put up this web link cause it is rather an interesting idea. But, like I said, chances are this has been done already numerous times in numerous places on numerous channels and I, the TV backwater person, am just seeing what the world has known about for a long long time.

Canadian Confidence

OH CANADA!

President George Bush was in the Oval Office wondering which country to invade next, when his telephone rang.

"Hallo, President Bush" a heavily accented voice said. This is Archie, up 'ere at the Harp Seal Pub in Badger's Cove, Newfoundland, Canada eh? I am callin' to tells ya dat we are officially declaring war on you eh!"

"Well Archie," George replied, "This is indeed important news! How big is your army?"

"Right now," said Archie, after a moments calculation "there is myself, me cousin Harold, me next-door-neighbor Mick, and the whole dart team from the pub. That makes eight!"

George paused. "I must tell you Archie, that I have one million men in my army waiting to move on my command."

"Holy jeez," said Archie. "I'll have ta call ya back!"

Sure enough, the next day, Archie called again.

"Mr. Bush, the war is still on! We have managed to acquire some infantry equipment!"

"And what equipment would that be Archie?", George asked.

"Well sir, we have two combines, a bulldozer, and Harry's farm tractor."

President Bush sighed. "I must tell you Archie, that I have 16,000 tanks and 14,000 armoured personnel carriers. Also, I've increased my army to one and a half million since we last spoke."

"Lard T'underin' Jaysus, bye", said Archie, "I'll be getting back to ya."

Sure enough, Archie rang again the next day. "President Bush, the war is still on! We have managed to git ourselves airborne! We up an' modified Harrigan's ultra-light wit a couple of shotguns in the cockpit, and four byes from the Legion have joined us as well!"

George was silent for a minute then cleared his throat. "I must tell you Archie that I have 10,000 bombers and 20,000 fighter planes. My military complex is surrounded by laser-guided, surface-to-air missile sites. And since we last spoke, I've increased my army to TWO MILLION!"

"Jeysus, Mary and Joseph," said Archie,"I'll have ta call youse back."

Sure enough, Archie called again the next day. "President Bush! I am sorry to have to tell you dat we have had to call off dis 'ere war."

"I'm sorry to hear that" said George. "Why the sudden change of heart?"

"Well, sir," said Archie, "we've all sat ourselves down and had a long chat over a bunch of pints, and come to realize dat dere's no way we can feed two million prisoners."

CANADIAN CONFIDENCE CANNOT BE SHAKEN!

Canada #1 Popularity!

Yeah! Canada is #1 in popularity. Was a little disappointed that only 12 countries were in the running but still YEAH Canada! Not going to put too much stock in it cause of the other countries that were in the list. Not to put the other countries down, but on a global scale, the other countries have had a bit more action in the whole global scale than Canada. Canadians seem to be more interested in picking on the local people (Inuits/aboriginals, immigrants, politicians, the down trodden in Canada) than those around the world. We haven't really attacked anyone (though have followed on the coat tails of some countries under the guise of 'peace keeping'), we haven't really taken any land or done anything really outlandish that would mar our reputation world wide (haven't done a nuclear test against the wishes of the world). Basically, we have just stuck to beating our own people and leaving the rest of the world to beat each other up. But, hey, we are #1 in popularity*G* kind of goes to show you, that an average kid can be a gold medalist in the Special Olympics*G*

Though one thing I found interesting is that the www.ctv.ca website has a survey every day that is usually related to a news story at hand. When the article came out saying that Canada was #1, they did a survey asking 'which one of these five countries has had the most positive effect world wide? Canada, Japan, USA, Korea, France'. the last time I checked the poll was still going and it had nearly 12,000 votes, and surprisingly enough, Canada had about 64% of the votes saying that Canada had the most positive effect. The other countries were splitting the rest of the votes very closely, so the decided winner was Canada. Now, what a surprise that is huh? glad to see that Canadians are humble as well. A Canadian survey actually suggests that Canada has had the most positive influence on the world. Wow, call me shocked and amazed on that one*G* I was going to wait to post the final results, but the ctv people have decided not to post the final results. Guess they sat back and realized that the poll was kind of biased and skewed and not really a good indicator. I mean, how many international people actually go to the www.ctv.ca website to do that voting?

but, regardless, glad to hear that we are #7 in tourism and #1 in popularity. Wonder on a survey of humility (which country is the humblest/has the humblest people?) would Canada come out as #1? though, gotta wonder, if Canadians all voted on that sort of thing, who would the Canadians vote for? if they vote for themselves, then they are not humble, and if they vote for someone else, then they are calling themselves braggards. Hmmmm, interesting question, would be interested to know the results of that one.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070306/popularity_poll_070306/20070306?hub=Canada


Canada tops world popularity poll, Israel is last
Updated Tue. Mar. 6 2007 8:20 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

Canada is ranked No. 1 in a new world popularity poll that looked at attitudes toward 12 major nations. Israel received the worst rating of the group.

The survey polled more than 28,000 people for the British Broadcasting Corp.'s World Service, asking them to rate 12 countries as having a positive or negative influence on the world. The countries on the list included: Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the United States, and Venezuela.

Canada was viewed positively by 54 per cent of respondents while 14 per cent held a negative image.

Israel had the worst rating with only 17 per cent sharing a positive view of the country and 56 per cent with a negative rating. For Iran, 18 per cent were positive and 54 per cent negative.
The United States had the third highest negative rating with 51 per cent citing the country as negative and 30 per cent positive. North Korea had a slightly better rating than the U.S. -- 48 per cent negative and 19 per cent positive.

Japan and France followed Canada with the best rankings. Britain, China and India were all viewed more positively than negatively.

Meanwhile, Russia had more negative than positive responses while opinions on Venezuela were evenly split.

The 27-member European Union received a 53 per cent positive rating and a 19 per cent negative rating.

"It appears that people around the world tend to look negatively on countries whose profile is marked by the pursuit of military power," said Steven Kull, director of the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, which conducted the research along with pollster GlobeScan.

"Countries that relate to the world primarily through soft power, like France and Japan and the EU in general, tend to be viewed positively," he told the Associated Press.

About 1,000 people in 27 different countries including the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Mexico and Australia were surveyed. As well, four predominantly Muslim countries -- Egypt, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia -- and two countries with large Muslim populations -- Lebanon and Nigeria -- were polled.
The respondents were interviewed in person and over the phone from November to mid-January.

Depending on the country, the margin of error ranges from 3.1 per cent to 4.9 per cent.

english 101 - drink, drank, drunk

ok, I dont know if this is just me, or if this is actually proper english, but whenever I read an article that says "man arrest for DRINK driving" my skin crawls, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up on end and I just want to scream and shout.

There is an article in the Yahoo news from Singapore headlines reads "Car crashes into stationary lorry, driver arrested for suspected drink driving" and in the blurb it reads "The driver of the car was suspected for drink driving and taken away for further investigations". I might be no expert, and I am sure that written in the penal code or law books it is written down as 'drink driving' but I believe that to be improper english. I mean, you are either 'drinking and driving' which means you have a drink in your hand or located next to you and you are drinking while driving at the same time, or you are drunk when you get into the vehicle and have no drink in your hand but continue to drive while impaired by alcohol at which point you are a 'drunk driver'. I guess to prove my point you could say how many people out there have said "man, I was totally drink last night."? no, you were drunk, not drink. A drink is what you do "let's drink to that!" or it is an object "I need a drink", it is not a state of mind "I am drink".

So, please, anyone out there, stop using the term 'drink driving' or if you are going to use it that way, have the -ing ending on the correct word and throw in an 'and' and make it 'drinking and driving'. So the headline should read "Car crashes into stationary lorry, driver arrested for suspected DRUNK driving " and the blurb in the update should be "The driver of the car was suspected for DRINKING AND DRIVING and taken away for further investigations".

Mind you, it is usually a pretty cut and dry case in this sort of instance, at least here in Canada. I mean, a car crash happens, police show up at the scene of the crime, smell alcohol on the man's breath and have him blow into the little breathalyzer and if it pops out a limit higher than .08%, there really isnt a suspected case there now is it? and how can they do further investigations if the individual has sobered up? they cart him away, put him into a cell then try to collect evidence that he was drunk at the time of the accident? But then again, never really got Singapore law and the whole police procedure/news paper reporting thing. Who knows, perhaps he was charged and tried on the spot, but the newspaper can't report that like the Canadian papers can so they just say 'investigations are underway'.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070304/5/singapore261786.html

head gear

Again, another disagreement is being warred in the higher worlds of law. Well, maybe not in the higher areas of law, but at least in the areas where people that really care about this sort of thing matter. So this woman wants to wear a hijab while playing soccer, which the one referee (of course a muslim who was out to get this girl because he probably didnt agree with her playing) didn't like and ejected her from the game. Personally, I liked Louis Manerio's comment saying "The rule is not clear -- it's left for interpretation and to the discretion of referees to make that call," I agree totally. I mean, the rule does not specifically state what or what not can be worn on the field during play. So, if a person of Norse/Scandinavian heritage decided to play soccer wearing a viking helmet complete with horns, then that should be allowed as well. Granted, extreme example but still there. My mother taught me the value of an extreme example to make logic sound right ("oh Johnny said that it was alright to throw tomatoes at that truck? well, if Johnny said it was alright to jump off a cliff would you do it as well?"). So, yes, it is an extreme example but still shows a point doesnt it?

I guess what it may come down to is the fact of people joining into other cultures games and then having to conform their beliefs and ideals to stick with the game. Granted, football is not a totally european sport where one individual culture can claim total and complete dominance or heritage towards it. Not like Basketball which was basically invented by a Canadian on American soil. Football has been basically been known to many different cultures over the world from ancient to modern times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football ). However, I dont think I could be wrong is saying that traditionally women never really had a chance to play the sport since most of the times they had their own 'socially acceptable' things. So, if that is the case, and it never really happened to arise that women (and their cultural customs) were to be limited to the sports rules and regulations, why should the sport be changed and altered for the sake of the one where the one should be altered for the sake of the sport?

though, surprisingly enough, most of Canadians polled on a recent poll suggested that head scarves should actually be banned from the soccer (football) field.

Should head scarves be banned from the soccer field?
Yes 8327 votes (62 %)
No 5143 votes (38 %)

Total Votes: 13470

Either which way you slice it, these are new times and times are a changing, though there are some things that shouldnt be changed. Football is football and it will always be football and if you dont like the way that rules and regulations are played in the sport, then dont play that sport.


http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20070303%2fsoccer_headscarves_070303&showbyline=True

Group mulls human rights case over FIFA ruling
03/03/2007 9:57:28 PM

A spokeswoman for a Canadian Muslim women's group thinks there's the basis for a human rights complaint in the FIFA decision to maintain a ban on Islamic head scarves on the soccer pitch.

CTV.ca News Staff

Asmahan Mansour, 11, was ejected from the game for not removing her hijab on the field.
"I think this is something that needs to be taken up with the United Nations in terms of human rights violations," Anisa Ali of the United Muslim Women of Canada told CTV Newsnet on Saturday. "We, as Muslim women, have a right to participate in sporting activities just like non-Muslim women."

Her group will be taking action "ASAP," she said.

Ali pronounced herself surprised at Saturday's decision by the International Football Association Board (IFAB), which is part of the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), because three members of a Jordanian team were recently allowed to play a match against Japan while wearing hijabs.

B.C. and Ontario both allow religious headgear, she said. Not allowing such headgear "sends a very negative view, especially to young women, who wish to participate in athletic activities," she said.

The family of Asmahan Mansour, the 11-year-old soccer player ejected from a game last weekend for refusing to remove her hijab, said on Saturday they will continue to fight for the right to wear the traditional Muslim head scarf on the pitch.

IFAB, which administers the rules for FIFA, ruled that the referee who ejected Mansour made the correct call.

Maria Mansour, mother of Asmahan, believes her daughter was singled out by the referee -- who is himself a Muslim -- and is saddened she experienced "humiliation in front of the eyes of hundreds of people."

The young soccer player had hoped the IFAB would rule in her favour and spare other girls from the same struggle.

"In Ottawa, they don't say anything, and in Quebec they say something?" Asmahan told CTV News. "They could have told me on Saturday before Sunday, when I registered."

The board reviewed the case of Mansour, who was told last weekend that she couldn't play in an under-12 tournament in Laval, Que. unless she removed her religious head-covering known as a hijab.

Brian Barwick, who spoke on behalf of the board, said it is important to be respectful to "people's thoughts and philosophies," but added that the rules of the game must be followed.

"We believe our football to be inclusive. It's part of what we believe our football to be," he told a news conference.

"But of course if you play football there are basic laws. And law four outlines what the basic laws are concerning gear. I think it's absolutely right to be sensitive to people's thoughts and philosophies but equally football has a set of rules it has to adhere to."

The fourth rule lists the items a player is entitled to wear. Head scarves are not mentioned.
Goalkeepers are allowed to wear caps and protective headgear.

The Quebec Soccer Association said the headscarf violated a no-headgear rule set down by FIFA for safety reasons.

"We are happy that there is a decision. I wish that it will be the end now. Soccer is sport. This sport has rules and we want to play soccer. Let's play soccer now," Michel Dugas of the Quebec Soccer Federation told CTV.

When she was ejected from the game for refusing to remove the covering, Mansour's coach withdrew the team from the tournament in protest.

"The rule is not clear -- it's left for interpretation and to the discretion of referees to make that call," Louis Maneiro, Asmahan's coach, told CTV Ottawa.

With files from CTV News, CTV Ottawa and CTV Montreal

If I post this, am I a racist?

There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, Native Americans, etc. And then there are just Americans.

You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You Call me "White boy," "Cracker," "Honkey," "Whitey," "Caveman" .. And that's OK.

But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink ... You call me a racist.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you, So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day. You have Black History Month. You have Cesar Chavez Day. You Have Yom Hashoah You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi You have the NAACP. You have BET.

If we had WET (White Entertainment Television) .. We'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day .. You would call us racists.
If we had White History Month We'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to "advance" OUR lives . We'd be racists.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce. Wonder who pays for that?

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships ... You know we'd be racists. There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US , yet if there were "White colleges" .THAT would be a racist college.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, You would call us racists.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride . You call us racists.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer Shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society .. You call him a racist.

I am proud. But, you call me a racist.

Why is it that only whites can be racists?

rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key n.
1 The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2 Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Canada in the top 10

ok, I read this article about "The first ever Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report, issued by the World Economic Forum, ranks the most attractive environments for development in the travel and tourism industry around the world. "

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070301/travel_study_070301/20070301?hub=Canada

Now I am glad to hear that Canada has ranked in the top 10. I find it even ironic how Canada has ranked even with Singapore, a country to which I plan on moving to in about 6 months time. Rather interesting, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. It is nice to know that Canada has the 2nd best air in the world...yeah team! Nice to know all those nasty SUVs and pick up trucks that us westerners insist of driving around town haven't totally destroyed the air we have. I mean, it is a necessity cause you just never know when you are going to hit that big moose on the main street of Edmonton, Calgary or Vancouver and we all know how much of a pain in the ass it is to haul a whole dead moose in the back of a Yaris, now don't we?

Though one thing I find amazing is that out of 124 countries, Canada scores 120th in expense to live. Now, I am assuming that this means that the #1 spot is the cheapest country to live in and #124 is the most expensive. I guess that means that we are really expensive to live here. I just wonder if they take into consideration the income and pay that Canadians are making as a whole or if they are just looking at costs. I mean, if you come from a country that has no minimum wage, work in a job for $3/hour and save up your entire life to come to Canada for a visit and find yourself paying $13 for a complete McDonald's meal, then it might be considered expensive. But if you are living in Canada and making $14/hour as a common dishwasher with no education or experience, then a $13 meal at McDonald's really isnt that expensive. Hmmm, I wonder about that part of the questionaire/survey and see.

Though I will admit that we are horrible when it comes to treating tourists. There are some Canadians that will go out of their way to be friendly and courtious to some tourists, but we have to draw the line and sometimes we do get snippy. I mean, we can only say the phrase "no, Canadians don't all own guns, that would be the Americans, and no, I do not know your friend Tom from Toronto because I live in Edmonton and that is a little far away". Also, an even worse thing that I can suggest as to why Canadians are sometimes bad towards tourists is because there are times when we might take them for immigrants. We do seem to have this horrible way of thinking that when you come to Canada you should be able to keep your beliefs, your culture and your religion as long as it doesnt mess with the usual (or Canadian normal) way of life. So, you are free to wear your turbins, carry your knives, celebrate any sort of holiday and observe all types of interesting and fascinating religious beliefs BUT when it disrupts the day to day life of work and all, then it draws a line. So, if the work uniform dictates a helmet then no a turbin is not considered a helmet and it should be removed. Yes, carry your knives at home but leave them there when you go to the supermarket, work or school. Feel free to pray as often as your religion dictates but remember, a normal work day means a 15 minute coffee break in the morning, 30 - 60 minutes for lunch (depending on where you work) and 15 minute coffee break in the afternoon and these are set times to work with other peoples schedule so that all are accomodated. If prayer takes 20 minutes, then I am afraid you are out of luck because it would disrupt the work place. Anyways, horrible tangent rant there, but back to the topic. Yes, there are many times when immigrants come to Canada and then all of a sudden demand that Canadians bow to accomodate them because that whole 'freedom of religion, life' part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So there are some Canadians that look at anyone with an accent and instantly think "immigrant" so when we are asked where something is the first thing that they think is "you are living here, find it out yourself". I bet it would be soooo much easier, and Canadians would be sooo much friendlier to tourists, if 1) we werent so multicultural, or 2) didnt have so many people forcing ways of life on everyone else.

but, yeah, in the long run, way to go Canada! Ranking good. Let's just work on a few other spots and let's be number 1! or, at least, beat those Yanks!*G*

Canada ranks seventh on top 10 tourism list
Updated Thu. Mar. 1 2007 12:04 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

Canada ranks seventh in a new international report released Thursday on the most desirable travel and tourism destinations.

The first ever Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report, issued by the World Economic Forum, ranks the most attractive environments for development in the travel and tourism industry around the world.

Canada tied with Singapore and Luxembourg out of the 124 countries surveyed, while Switzerland, Austria and Germany took the top three positions. Angola, Burundi and Chad rounded out the bottom three positions.

"I would say in general it is a very good assessment of Canada," Irene Mia, a senior economist with the World Economic Forum who helped prepare the report, told The Canadian Press from Geneva. "It's in the top 10."

Canada's illustrious showing was due in part to the excellent air (ranked second in the world) and ground transportation infrastructure. The continuing focus on travel and tourism across the country also bolstered the ranking.

Canada also boasts 13 World Heritage sites, which continue to draw tourists from around the world, as well as an educated and healthy tourism work force ready to meet the needs of travelers.

However, there are areas in need of improvement within the tourism industry. Canada's health and hygiene came in at the 38th spot, while the low concentration of doctors contributed to a rank of 48 within the physician density category.

The high standard of living also contributed to visitor woes. "When it comes to the cost of living in the country, Canada scores really bad -- 120th out of 124 countries -- very expensive," said Mia.

Canadians also appeared to have a hard time rolling out the welcome mat for newcomers. Canada ranked 76 in the assessment of the actions of Canadians towards tourists.
The study aims to understand why some economies continue to prosper, while others are left behind. Travel and tourism is now a key factor in economic growth and development. According to the Global Competitiveness Network, international tourism garnered US$622.7 billion in 2004.

A high placement on the index bodes well for governments and can be used by potential investors for comparative analysis.

"Learnings from this report will allow industry to effectively and efficiently engage governments in creating blueprints for sustainable and viable travel & tourism industry development," said Thea Chiesa, head of aviation at the Travel and Tourism at the World Economic Forum.

To be deemed an attractive destination, the survey looked at: a country's travel and tourism regulatory framework; its travel and tourism business environment and infrastructure; and its tourism human, cultural and natural resources.

"Our study is not a 'beauty contest', or a statement about the attractiveness of a country," Jennifer Blanke, senior economist of the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Network, said in a written statement. "On the contrary, we aim to measure the factors that make it attractive to develop the travel and tourism industry of individual countries."

Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index:
1Switzerland 5.66
2Austria 5.54
3Germany 5.48
4Iceland 5.45
5United States 5.43
6Hong Kong SAR 5.33
7Canada 5.31
8Singapore 5.31
9Luxembourg 5.31
10United Kingdom 5.28