(see this article from yahoo.ca)
Canadian healthcare in Obama aide's tirade
By Lee-Anne Goodman, The Canadian Press
WASHINGTON - White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has taken vitriolic aim at an unexpected target: the "professional left" for being unnecessarily harsh on U.S. President Barack Obama and pushing for something as outrageous as a Canadian-style health-care system.
"They will be satisfied when we have Canadian health care and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon," the normally affable Gibbs says in an explosive interview published Tuesday in the congressional newspaper The Hill. "That’s not reality."
Those on the left who claim Obama as president isn't much different than George W. Bush, he added, "ought to be drug-tested."
The remarks sent immediate shockwaves through D.C., particularly among the very liberals who have expressed disappointment with the president since his historic election in November 2008 on a message of hope and change.
Calling Gibbs's rant "one of the most petulant, self-pitying outbursts seen from a top political official in recent memory," commentator Glenn Greenwald took the press secretary to task point by point Tuesday for his tirade against the Democratic party's base.
In a lengthy rebuttal for the left-leaning online magazine Salon, Greenwald wrote: "If memory serves, didn't the White House repeatedly insist Obama was committed to the public option, the central goal of those who Gibbs is now claiming want 'Canadian health care?'"
"Also, didn't anti-war sentiment play a pretty big role in electing Obama as president, given that Obama's opposition to the Iraq War was almost singlehandly responsible for allowing him to rise from relative obscurity to defeat Hillary in the 2008 Dem primary?"
Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine, pointed out that Americans voted for Obama to make good on his promise of change.
"He has not come close to delivering on that promise," he wrote in an article on the magazine's website Tuesday entitled Back At You, Robert Gibbs.
"He has not met the challenges boldly. He has not given most Americans tangible improvements in their lives. And he’s failed to do so because he’s been afraid to act _ and to be perceived as _ a real progressive ... Robert Gibbs should be grateful that progressives aren’t even more critical of Obama."
By mid-day Tuesday, Gibbs was expressing remorse about his comments in a statement aimed at attempting to explain his frustration at the criticism confronting his boss.
"I watch too much cable, I admit. Day after day it gets frustrating," he said.
"So what I may have said inartfully, let me say this way _ since coming to office in January 2009, this White House and Congress have worked tirelessly to put our country back on the right path. Most importantly, to dig our way out of a huge recession and build an economy that makes America more competitive and our middle class more secure."
"Some are frustrated that the change we want hasn't come fast enough for many Americans. That we all understand."
Gibbs didn't helm the daily White House press briefing on Tuesday. Instead, deputy press secretary Bill Burton defended his colleague.
"I think what Gibbs was doing was having one conversation with one reporter and in response to questions about frustrations, he answered honestly, and it shouldn't be read anything more than that," he said.
The White House has been under attack in recent months not just from its usual enemy camp of conservatives and Republicans, but from those on the left who complain Obama was weak on health-care reform, is dragging his feet on closing the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba and has moved too slowly to end the ban on gays serving in the military.
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, a popular liberal commentator, recently called Obama's key strategist, David Axelrod, a "human pretzel" for declaring Obama was against same-sex marriage but favoured equal benefits for gays and lesbians in committed relationships.
A recent attack from the liberal group Progressive Change Campaign Committee apparently angered Gibbs. Earlier this week, one of the group's founders, Adam Green, accused Obama of "caving without a fight" by dropping the public option during the bare-knuckled battle for health-care legislation earlier this year.
The White House, on the other hand, believes it's taken on several liberal causes without getting any credit. White House officials point to health-care reform, financial regulatory legislation, a fair-pay bill for women and Obama's move to end the war in Iraq, with combat operations concluding this month.
He's also nominated two female Supreme Court justices, including the first Hispanic.
"There’s 101 things we’ve done," said Gibbs.
But in his later statement, Gibbs extended an olive branch to the left.
"We should all, me included, stop fighting each other and arguing about our differences on certain policies, and instead work together to make sure everyone knows what is at stake because we've come too far to turn back now."
It's the second time Gibbs has found himself in hot water this summer.
On NBC's "Meet The Press" in July, Gibbs speculated Democrats might lose the House of Representatives in the crucial mid-term elections in November. Those remarks reportedly infuriated Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, and before long Gibbs said he thought Democrats would do "very well" in the mid-terms.
(end of article)
First things first: this man is the White House Press Secretary? Are you for real? Who makes such unintelligent, bold and aggressive statements when their very job description is to delicately tiptoe on egg shells when it comes to the world's most vital and controversial issues? Isn't it this man's job to shy away from and even eliminate controversy where he can, to contextualize and soften messages the way that you massage Kobe beef? Way to represent the White House, Mr. Gibbs. You've just become the Kanye West of politics.
Not only does Mr. Gibbs insult Canadian health care by insinuating that it's an undesirable system to adopt, he also adds in a jibe about eliminating the Pentagon. Of course, because pro-health care pundits don't care about the safety of the nation. That should be a given. A group of people who wants to ensure that their fellow citizens can be treated for health concerns without bearing incredible costs is obviously anti-safety for those same fellow citizens.
Mr. Gibbs then defends himself in a sheepish apologetic statement of "I watch too much cable." Are you blaming television for your frank remarks? Unless you suddenly burst into song because you thought that you were a contestant on American Idol, I don't think you can blame television for your scathing statements.
To further his point, Mr. Gibbs follows up this statement by claiming that the White House has been on the right path and that they've done a lot to help the economy recover, even within the context of a recession. Well, that's excellent news, however, the economy was not the platform that the President ran on, nor is it the change that people were hoping to see. Health care reforms and an end to the war in Iraq were major motivators for electing Obama. And the criticism surrounding his success rate to date are fair, even if the administration is on the rigth path.
Then there's this self-pitying statement here:
The White House, on the other hand, believes it's taken on several liberal causes without getting any credit. White House officials point to health-care reform, financial regulatory legislation, a fair-pay bill for women and Obama's move to end the war in Iraq, with combat operations concluding this month.
He's also nominated two female Supreme Court justices, including the first Hispanic.
"There’s 101 things we’ve done," said Gibbs.
Uh, no Mr. Gibbs. That's 6 things, if you're counting with real numbers rather than fake ones. It may feel like it was 101 things, but if you actually add them up, they only come up to 6. That doesn't mean that they're insignificant, though.
It's a given that Obama was elected on an agenda of hope and change that garnered the kind of high expectations that mere mortals can't be expected to uphold. But that doesn't deny the country's citizens the rights to criticize the administration even while applauding the positive things. Constant vigilance is the price you pay for democracy, and some of these criticisms may be reminder to stay on track, rather than telling the administration that they're on the wrong path.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Everybody Needs Nobody?
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/accesshollywood/100811/entertainment/bill_o_reilly_slams_jennifer_aniston_over_her_views_on_single_parenting
In this article, Bill O'Reilly comes down hard on Jennifer Aniston for expressing her opinion on being a single mother by choice in today's society. O'Reilly claims that Aniston's opinion that women have more options these days and don't have to forego having children because they don't have a husband, are socially destructive. He appears to think that Aniston's comments are an assault on the family unit, particulary, on fathers. He claims that this begs the question: do fathers matter?
This is a complex issue and deserves to be looked at from many angles.
On the one hand, what is a father and what is their role in a child's life? They're traditionally providers, male influences, a second opinion when mom says no, that person who gives the living room couch that special warm groove, and the one who magically makes garbage bags disappear from the house. As we get older, there are issues, political debates, fatherly advice, and those occasions when you need to talk to dad for money.
Is all this essential to a person's existence? No. Arguably, mom's influence is much more vital to our survival, as she is the womb, the provider of life, the provider of food and essential services like being driven to soccer practice, and an endless source of both informaion and unsolicited advice. Your mother is generally the person who cries at your milestone events and hangs your ugly kindgarten photos on the fridge. For many, they grow up in homes where mom rules the roost and makes the big decisions.
One can easily make the argument that dad is not essential in this scenario as long as mom has the time, money and support network needed to cater to her child's needs. Many of the single mothers by choice out there are affluent older women who have successful careers and substantial egg nests. It can be argued that they have no need for a secondary income or for someone to fill out that spot on the couch.
Unfortunately, a lot of these single women don't have the time to stay at home with their children if they're still actively working. So they hire a supporting cast of maids, nurses, nannies, cooks and all the of the rest, to help them raise their child. This child's needs are covered, but not necessarily by mom herself. So if dad is unnecessary, maybe in this case, mom is, too.
And what about those children who lose their parents at a young age? Their caregivers can range from a group of family relations, to adoptive parents, to foster care homes, to a large network of friends who basically are family to them. There's a wide range of options for raising a child, and they don't have to be the typical traditional family unit of mom and dad.
So if nobody actually needs parents, does anybody need anybody?
Following this logic, Bill O'Reilly's comments are entirely unfair. One loving parent who truly wants a child may be just as great a parent as two negligent parents who are resigned to their situation. But what about the fact of having a father? Is it important to have someone to call dad, or can a child simply rely on male figures like uncles, brothers and Clint Eastwood films?
Daddy issues make for great entertainment in JJ Abrams films, but they can have detrimental cross over effects in real life. Children lacking a male influence may grow up with mixed feelings about men and how they should behave. This may lead them to take their cues from questionable sources or accept certain behaviors that they may not otherwise know are wrong. This is not to say that all children without dads are screwed up in their relationships with men; but the absense of a strong male father figure can be disruptive to some.
Then there's the test tube factor. It's hard to say how children will react to being told that their father is an anonymous sperm donor who may have been collecting some extra cash one weekend. It can make a child feel that they're not rooted to someone, that they don't have a shared lineage or history and can affect their sense of identity. They will never have the opportunity to blame their father for a physical attribute that they hate like their nose or the size of their bum, nor will they be able to blame their neuroses on their father.
While it's unfortunate to be faced with the reality that you may not have those experiences, they're not exactly detrimental to our survival. What would be detrimental to our survival is a lack of food, water, shelter and a zombie apocalypse. Either way, though, people do need people while growing up, whether it's a traditional family unit, a paid supporting cast of servants or an impromptu support unit of friends. We need people to support and guide us, and the more of those people, the better. They don't need to be 'mom' and they don't need to be 'dad'. They don't even need to be family, really. They just need to be there when it counts.
In this article, Bill O'Reilly comes down hard on Jennifer Aniston for expressing her opinion on being a single mother by choice in today's society. O'Reilly claims that Aniston's opinion that women have more options these days and don't have to forego having children because they don't have a husband, are socially destructive. He appears to think that Aniston's comments are an assault on the family unit, particulary, on fathers. He claims that this begs the question: do fathers matter?
This is a complex issue and deserves to be looked at from many angles.
On the one hand, what is a father and what is their role in a child's life? They're traditionally providers, male influences, a second opinion when mom says no, that person who gives the living room couch that special warm groove, and the one who magically makes garbage bags disappear from the house. As we get older, there are issues, political debates, fatherly advice, and those occasions when you need to talk to dad for money.
Is all this essential to a person's existence? No. Arguably, mom's influence is much more vital to our survival, as she is the womb, the provider of life, the provider of food and essential services like being driven to soccer practice, and an endless source of both informaion and unsolicited advice. Your mother is generally the person who cries at your milestone events and hangs your ugly kindgarten photos on the fridge. For many, they grow up in homes where mom rules the roost and makes the big decisions.
One can easily make the argument that dad is not essential in this scenario as long as mom has the time, money and support network needed to cater to her child's needs. Many of the single mothers by choice out there are affluent older women who have successful careers and substantial egg nests. It can be argued that they have no need for a secondary income or for someone to fill out that spot on the couch.
Unfortunately, a lot of these single women don't have the time to stay at home with their children if they're still actively working. So they hire a supporting cast of maids, nurses, nannies, cooks and all the of the rest, to help them raise their child. This child's needs are covered, but not necessarily by mom herself. So if dad is unnecessary, maybe in this case, mom is, too.
And what about those children who lose their parents at a young age? Their caregivers can range from a group of family relations, to adoptive parents, to foster care homes, to a large network of friends who basically are family to them. There's a wide range of options for raising a child, and they don't have to be the typical traditional family unit of mom and dad.
So if nobody actually needs parents, does anybody need anybody?
Following this logic, Bill O'Reilly's comments are entirely unfair. One loving parent who truly wants a child may be just as great a parent as two negligent parents who are resigned to their situation. But what about the fact of having a father? Is it important to have someone to call dad, or can a child simply rely on male figures like uncles, brothers and Clint Eastwood films?
Daddy issues make for great entertainment in JJ Abrams films, but they can have detrimental cross over effects in real life. Children lacking a male influence may grow up with mixed feelings about men and how they should behave. This may lead them to take their cues from questionable sources or accept certain behaviors that they may not otherwise know are wrong. This is not to say that all children without dads are screwed up in their relationships with men; but the absense of a strong male father figure can be disruptive to some.
Then there's the test tube factor. It's hard to say how children will react to being told that their father is an anonymous sperm donor who may have been collecting some extra cash one weekend. It can make a child feel that they're not rooted to someone, that they don't have a shared lineage or history and can affect their sense of identity. They will never have the opportunity to blame their father for a physical attribute that they hate like their nose or the size of their bum, nor will they be able to blame their neuroses on their father.
While it's unfortunate to be faced with the reality that you may not have those experiences, they're not exactly detrimental to our survival. What would be detrimental to our survival is a lack of food, water, shelter and a zombie apocalypse. Either way, though, people do need people while growing up, whether it's a traditional family unit, a paid supporting cast of servants or an impromptu support unit of friends. We need people to support and guide us, and the more of those people, the better. They don't need to be 'mom' and they don't need to be 'dad'. They don't even need to be family, really. They just need to be there when it counts.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The world's turn to invade Britain
See this article from yahoo.ca
LONDON - Are Canadians easily offended?
New guidelines from Britain's national tourism agency ahead of the 2012 London Olympics warn that Canadians can be overly sensitive, especially about their national identity.
Seeking to help the country's sometimes snarky citizens offer a warmer welcome, VisitBritain has updated its advice for anyone likely to work with travellers arriving from overseas — from hotel staff to taxi drivers.
The advice says Canadian tourists are likely to be quite annoyed about being mistaken for Americans, the guide suggests — urging workers to keep an eye out for Maple Leaf pins or badges on tourists' clothing.
Hold off from hugging an Indian, the guide says, and don't be alarmed if the French are rude.
Other tips: Don't go around asking Brazilians personal questions and never be bossy with visitors from the Middle East.
"Giving our foreign visitors a friendly welcome is absolutely vital to our economy," said Sandie Dawe, chief executive officer of the agency. "With hundreds of thousands of people thinking of coming to Britain in the run-up to the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012, this new advice is just one of the ways that VisitBritain is helping the tourism industry care for their customers."
About 30 million people visit Britain each year, spending about 16.6 billion pounds (C$27 billion). The 2012 Olympics is likely to bring in an additional 2.1 billion (C$3.4 billion) in tourism revenue, according to a government estimate, and about 320,000 extra visitors from overseas during the games in July and August 2012.
VisitBritain said research it had conducted found tourists believe Britons are honest and efficient — but not the most pleasant. Britain is ranked 14th out of 50 in the Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index on the quality of welcome offered to visitors, the tourism agency said.
The frank etiquette tips were written by agency staff about their own native countries.
Polish tourists are likely to be hurt by stereotypes that imply they drink excessively, while the French are notoriously picky in restaurants, the guidelines claim.
U.K. workers are told to brush off common Argentine jokes about a person's clothing or weight. Belgians take offence at people snapping their fingers while Australians are fond of coarse language. Japanese people consider prolonged eye contact impolite and smile to express a range of emotions — not simply to show happiness.
Tourism workers are advised to show extra patience when dealing with guests from India or the United Arab Emirates.
"Indians are in general, an impatient lot, and like to be quickly attended to," the guidelines claim. "The more affluent they are, the more demanding and brusque they tend to be."
Indians also don't like being touched by strangers and may be suspicious about the quality of British food, the guide said, without noting the latter might be a common concern.
Travellers from the Middle East are likely to be demanding with staff and "are not used to being told what they can't do," the guide warns.
Guests from China and Hong Kong may find winking or pointing with an index finger rude, while "mentioning failure, poverty or death risks offence," the advice claims. Chinese visitors may be unimpressed by landmarks just a few hundred years old, tourism staff are told.
Workers are advised against discussing poverty, immigration, earthquakes or the Mexican-American war with visitors from Mexico — who prefer to chat about history and art.
And Americans? They can appear "informal to the point of being very direct or even rude" and won't ever hesitate about complaining, the guide says.
(end of article)
How insightful! Good for Britain, figuring out all the stereotypes that can be commonly applied to certain groups based on their nationality and doing a polite finger waving at all of their employees so that they should handle all of these weirdos from other nations with kid gloves so to speak and be sure not to offend their various odd sensitivities.
While known as not being the most tolerant or open-minded of all nations, it's a refreshing step forward to see that Britain is taking responsibility for playing a good host for the Olympics and putting on its best cheeky face. It's also refreshing to know that Britain wants to make this sort of effort, and not just to bring in badly needed tourism dollars that they are so lacking. But they have a real desire not to offend the visitors from around the world as they watch their athletes compete at an international event.
And a round of applause should go to the International Olympic Committee, who embraced their traditional roots of supporting lesser-known destinations in the world to host an international event that will bring them instant recognition and inject much-needed funds into their uneven economies. Hurray for such sportsmanlike and courteous behavior, upholding the less fortunate countries in the world and foregoing such luxuries as four star treatment by potential host candidates and making a real decision based on fairness and integrity rather than commercialism and greed.
This is all quite practical advice to be sure. One would not want to be seen as a rude, ignorant jack ass in front of guests by doing something as untoward as mentioning poverty to a poor dirty Mexican. And one would not want the shock of an outraged impatient Indian who is not tended to in a timely manner, therefore putting a big black eye on the entire British nation, never mind the history of vicious colonization that may have harboured some of that impatience in the first place. It's also quite unpractical to mention poverty, failure or death to Asians, especially considering how every other nation on the planet considers those to be the preferred small talk items over tea. Nothing says polite company like a long, frank discussion about death.
Perhaps it would have been more practical to send out a pamphlet to organizers for the Olympic Games in London with 2 words on it: Be Nice. It's a fairly standard practice to attempt to be nice to people who aren't from your country and to treat them with basic respect, tending to their needs when you can and looking for help when you can't. And I'm not sure that grown adults need to be told to stick to neutral topics when talking to other adults, save for those precious few unbalanced people in the street who love to reveal stark, intensely personal details about themselves to random strangers for no apparent reason. And those people have no particular nationality, they're just that crazy part of the human rainbow that exist in every country.
Last, but not least, Canadians don't like being mistaken for Americans, no more than Welsh or Irish people like to be mistaken for Britons. But we don't expect Britain to be sensitive to this either, considering that they haven't shown the same consideration to either of these nations in the past. And Canadians aren't that different than Americans in the last sense: Americans will complain without hesitation, but Canadians will do the same. They just won't complain to you.
LONDON - Are Canadians easily offended?
New guidelines from Britain's national tourism agency ahead of the 2012 London Olympics warn that Canadians can be overly sensitive, especially about their national identity.
Seeking to help the country's sometimes snarky citizens offer a warmer welcome, VisitBritain has updated its advice for anyone likely to work with travellers arriving from overseas — from hotel staff to taxi drivers.
The advice says Canadian tourists are likely to be quite annoyed about being mistaken for Americans, the guide suggests — urging workers to keep an eye out for Maple Leaf pins or badges on tourists' clothing.
Hold off from hugging an Indian, the guide says, and don't be alarmed if the French are rude.
Other tips: Don't go around asking Brazilians personal questions and never be bossy with visitors from the Middle East.
"Giving our foreign visitors a friendly welcome is absolutely vital to our economy," said Sandie Dawe, chief executive officer of the agency. "With hundreds of thousands of people thinking of coming to Britain in the run-up to the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012, this new advice is just one of the ways that VisitBritain is helping the tourism industry care for their customers."
About 30 million people visit Britain each year, spending about 16.6 billion pounds (C$27 billion). The 2012 Olympics is likely to bring in an additional 2.1 billion (C$3.4 billion) in tourism revenue, according to a government estimate, and about 320,000 extra visitors from overseas during the games in July and August 2012.
VisitBritain said research it had conducted found tourists believe Britons are honest and efficient — but not the most pleasant. Britain is ranked 14th out of 50 in the Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index on the quality of welcome offered to visitors, the tourism agency said.
The frank etiquette tips were written by agency staff about their own native countries.
Polish tourists are likely to be hurt by stereotypes that imply they drink excessively, while the French are notoriously picky in restaurants, the guidelines claim.
U.K. workers are told to brush off common Argentine jokes about a person's clothing or weight. Belgians take offence at people snapping their fingers while Australians are fond of coarse language. Japanese people consider prolonged eye contact impolite and smile to express a range of emotions — not simply to show happiness.
Tourism workers are advised to show extra patience when dealing with guests from India or the United Arab Emirates.
"Indians are in general, an impatient lot, and like to be quickly attended to," the guidelines claim. "The more affluent they are, the more demanding and brusque they tend to be."
Indians also don't like being touched by strangers and may be suspicious about the quality of British food, the guide said, without noting the latter might be a common concern.
Travellers from the Middle East are likely to be demanding with staff and "are not used to being told what they can't do," the guide warns.
Guests from China and Hong Kong may find winking or pointing with an index finger rude, while "mentioning failure, poverty or death risks offence," the advice claims. Chinese visitors may be unimpressed by landmarks just a few hundred years old, tourism staff are told.
Workers are advised against discussing poverty, immigration, earthquakes or the Mexican-American war with visitors from Mexico — who prefer to chat about history and art.
And Americans? They can appear "informal to the point of being very direct or even rude" and won't ever hesitate about complaining, the guide says.
(end of article)
How insightful! Good for Britain, figuring out all the stereotypes that can be commonly applied to certain groups based on their nationality and doing a polite finger waving at all of their employees so that they should handle all of these weirdos from other nations with kid gloves so to speak and be sure not to offend their various odd sensitivities.
While known as not being the most tolerant or open-minded of all nations, it's a refreshing step forward to see that Britain is taking responsibility for playing a good host for the Olympics and putting on its best cheeky face. It's also refreshing to know that Britain wants to make this sort of effort, and not just to bring in badly needed tourism dollars that they are so lacking. But they have a real desire not to offend the visitors from around the world as they watch their athletes compete at an international event.
And a round of applause should go to the International Olympic Committee, who embraced their traditional roots of supporting lesser-known destinations in the world to host an international event that will bring them instant recognition and inject much-needed funds into their uneven economies. Hurray for such sportsmanlike and courteous behavior, upholding the less fortunate countries in the world and foregoing such luxuries as four star treatment by potential host candidates and making a real decision based on fairness and integrity rather than commercialism and greed.
This is all quite practical advice to be sure. One would not want to be seen as a rude, ignorant jack ass in front of guests by doing something as untoward as mentioning poverty to a poor dirty Mexican. And one would not want the shock of an outraged impatient Indian who is not tended to in a timely manner, therefore putting a big black eye on the entire British nation, never mind the history of vicious colonization that may have harboured some of that impatience in the first place. It's also quite unpractical to mention poverty, failure or death to Asians, especially considering how every other nation on the planet considers those to be the preferred small talk items over tea. Nothing says polite company like a long, frank discussion about death.
Perhaps it would have been more practical to send out a pamphlet to organizers for the Olympic Games in London with 2 words on it: Be Nice. It's a fairly standard practice to attempt to be nice to people who aren't from your country and to treat them with basic respect, tending to their needs when you can and looking for help when you can't. And I'm not sure that grown adults need to be told to stick to neutral topics when talking to other adults, save for those precious few unbalanced people in the street who love to reveal stark, intensely personal details about themselves to random strangers for no apparent reason. And those people have no particular nationality, they're just that crazy part of the human rainbow that exist in every country.
Last, but not least, Canadians don't like being mistaken for Americans, no more than Welsh or Irish people like to be mistaken for Britons. But we don't expect Britain to be sensitive to this either, considering that they haven't shown the same consideration to either of these nations in the past. And Canadians aren't that different than Americans in the last sense: Americans will complain without hesitation, but Canadians will do the same. They just won't complain to you.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Colonies on the Moon
Stephen Hawking has recently declared on the website BigThink that humans may have to consider making a new home for themselves in space in order to keep the human race going.
You know what this means, right? It's time to make those colonies on the moon that we've been talking about for so long. Yes, the time has come to find a new home planet and so far, it seems that the moon or Mars is the best new candidate.
The moon has the advantage of being fairly remote and full of interesting craters. It does, unfortunately, lack gravity, but it has wonderful potential to be a rock-collector's haven. Mars, which has been suspected of being able to sustain life and produce water, is also an excellent candidate, but has the mifortune of being substantially further away and red. It does have a cool name and a chocolate bar named after it, though.
While there's no arguing that Hawking is a brilliant, gifted man and an excellent guest star on the Simpsons, I'm not so sure what to make of this statement. It could be theoretically sound, all things considered, but logistically odd. On the one hand, Hawking argues that humans should consider a new planet because of the wear and tear on our current planet. Pollution, climate change (if you believe in that) and human disasters brought on by such international incidents like the Cuban Missile Crisis, have all contributed to our planet's demise and it is slowly deteriorating as a result.
Which begs the question: if we do all of this to our current planet, won't we just damage the next planet? An apocalyptic disaster that destroys the earth may be inevitable, but if this is triggered mostly by human error, do we really deserve a new planet to destroy?
Granted, it does take us millenia to destroy a planet, so there's the remote possibility that we will learn from our past mistakes and make the new planet a better place. But haven't we already been saying that for a millenia? And don't we generally recycle the same mistakes in the same way that we recycle fashion?
Are we worth saving? Some people would argue that humans are worth saving because we're intelligent life forms that have self-awareness and great potential to create beautiful things like music, art, literature and other remarkable things. Other people would argue that we're one of the only species that knows how to love and that the meaning of our relationships is worth saving because they're true bonds that defy simple concepts like natural selection or basic survival.
And then there's the crowd that says that humans are just arrogant apes, that we're not much different from any other species on the planet. Many have come before us, many of us will come after us and we will die out. We're a species like any other and not some gifted group of chosen people and that our relationships are the evolved result of basic survival, but no better.
So maybe we should consider this and all the things that we've done in our history to ourselves, the environment, the planet and each other before we start selling time shares on the moon.
You know what this means, right? It's time to make those colonies on the moon that we've been talking about for so long. Yes, the time has come to find a new home planet and so far, it seems that the moon or Mars is the best new candidate.
The moon has the advantage of being fairly remote and full of interesting craters. It does, unfortunately, lack gravity, but it has wonderful potential to be a rock-collector's haven. Mars, which has been suspected of being able to sustain life and produce water, is also an excellent candidate, but has the mifortune of being substantially further away and red. It does have a cool name and a chocolate bar named after it, though.
While there's no arguing that Hawking is a brilliant, gifted man and an excellent guest star on the Simpsons, I'm not so sure what to make of this statement. It could be theoretically sound, all things considered, but logistically odd. On the one hand, Hawking argues that humans should consider a new planet because of the wear and tear on our current planet. Pollution, climate change (if you believe in that) and human disasters brought on by such international incidents like the Cuban Missile Crisis, have all contributed to our planet's demise and it is slowly deteriorating as a result.
Which begs the question: if we do all of this to our current planet, won't we just damage the next planet? An apocalyptic disaster that destroys the earth may be inevitable, but if this is triggered mostly by human error, do we really deserve a new planet to destroy?
Granted, it does take us millenia to destroy a planet, so there's the remote possibility that we will learn from our past mistakes and make the new planet a better place. But haven't we already been saying that for a millenia? And don't we generally recycle the same mistakes in the same way that we recycle fashion?
Are we worth saving? Some people would argue that humans are worth saving because we're intelligent life forms that have self-awareness and great potential to create beautiful things like music, art, literature and other remarkable things. Other people would argue that we're one of the only species that knows how to love and that the meaning of our relationships is worth saving because they're true bonds that defy simple concepts like natural selection or basic survival.
And then there's the crowd that says that humans are just arrogant apes, that we're not much different from any other species on the planet. Many have come before us, many of us will come after us and we will die out. We're a species like any other and not some gifted group of chosen people and that our relationships are the evolved result of basic survival, but no better.
So maybe we should consider this and all the things that we've done in our history to ourselves, the environment, the planet and each other before we start selling time shares on the moon.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Thanks for the Tip
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/forbes/83/five-expenses-that-will-consume-50-per-cent-of-your-lifetime-earnings
This personal Finance article from Forbes online has stated that the 5 expenses that will consume 50% of your lifetime earnings are home, car, kids, education and retirement. While it does provide interesting facts and figures as to the ideal percentage of our income that we should be saving to have these things in our lives and still live comfortably above the margin line, it's surprisingly unhelpful otherwise.
While most of us know that there is an ideal pie graph out there that spells out what we should spend on what areas of our life and colour coordinates different categories of expenses that make up our daily lives, it doesn't spell out how this is feasible in the real world. Let's face it, personal finances are easy when they're on paper. They're controlled, they're carefully calculated and some of the most judicious of us even put in anticipatory inflation rates so as to calculate our future costs.
But give me a break. How many of us in the real world do this?
We all know that life is expensive. We also know that the only sure things in life are death and taxes. We also know that you need to plan for and make sacrifices for the things that you really want and that you can't afford to have a champagne diet on a beer budget. But none of this really helps.
The truth of the matter is that life, unlike finance, is completely unpredictable and messy. Sure, we're smart and we can plan on a 5 year interval to complete our Masters degree and then put 5% of our income aside for a downpayment on a home. But then life steps in, unwelcome and unannounced: the heater breaks, your car needs serious repair or it will collapse in the middle of the highway, your mother gets sick, your partner gets pregnant (surprise!) or your cousin gets kidnapped by revolutionnaries while traveling to South America and needs you to pay a ransom.
And then there's the choices. Education may be expensive, but what if you need to get a better job or your current job makes you unhappy? And maybe you want to own a home without having to ride a bus a half hour into work one way every day for the next 25 years of your life. And are you really going to let an Excel spreadsheet of numbers from the last fiscal year dictate to you whether or not you can have children? Come back down to planet Earth, friend.
If this article wanted to offer some practical advice that real people may actually use, it could have pointed out that cash is often lost in unnecessary places and eliminating these black holes for cash may be a better option than calculating percentages for the next 25 years with a 3% inflationary rate.
Practical advice like dropping little extras like coffee and bringing your own from home or bringing in lunch. Buying in bulk for those things that you always need and that don't expire, such as household supplies and cleaning products. Going generic for certain items. Handwashing your own clothes or taking public transport. And one of the most important: don't buy now and pay later. Save up for the things that you want and then buy them with cash that you have.
Pretty simple when you think about it.
Not so easy to apply in real life. But a heck of a lot easier than calculating future inflationary rates and rotating colourful pie charts that are supposed to represent your life.
This personal Finance article from Forbes online has stated that the 5 expenses that will consume 50% of your lifetime earnings are home, car, kids, education and retirement. While it does provide interesting facts and figures as to the ideal percentage of our income that we should be saving to have these things in our lives and still live comfortably above the margin line, it's surprisingly unhelpful otherwise.
While most of us know that there is an ideal pie graph out there that spells out what we should spend on what areas of our life and colour coordinates different categories of expenses that make up our daily lives, it doesn't spell out how this is feasible in the real world. Let's face it, personal finances are easy when they're on paper. They're controlled, they're carefully calculated and some of the most judicious of us even put in anticipatory inflation rates so as to calculate our future costs.
But give me a break. How many of us in the real world do this?
We all know that life is expensive. We also know that the only sure things in life are death and taxes. We also know that you need to plan for and make sacrifices for the things that you really want and that you can't afford to have a champagne diet on a beer budget. But none of this really helps.
The truth of the matter is that life, unlike finance, is completely unpredictable and messy. Sure, we're smart and we can plan on a 5 year interval to complete our Masters degree and then put 5% of our income aside for a downpayment on a home. But then life steps in, unwelcome and unannounced: the heater breaks, your car needs serious repair or it will collapse in the middle of the highway, your mother gets sick, your partner gets pregnant (surprise!) or your cousin gets kidnapped by revolutionnaries while traveling to South America and needs you to pay a ransom.
And then there's the choices. Education may be expensive, but what if you need to get a better job or your current job makes you unhappy? And maybe you want to own a home without having to ride a bus a half hour into work one way every day for the next 25 years of your life. And are you really going to let an Excel spreadsheet of numbers from the last fiscal year dictate to you whether or not you can have children? Come back down to planet Earth, friend.
If this article wanted to offer some practical advice that real people may actually use, it could have pointed out that cash is often lost in unnecessary places and eliminating these black holes for cash may be a better option than calculating percentages for the next 25 years with a 3% inflationary rate.
Practical advice like dropping little extras like coffee and bringing your own from home or bringing in lunch. Buying in bulk for those things that you always need and that don't expire, such as household supplies and cleaning products. Going generic for certain items. Handwashing your own clothes or taking public transport. And one of the most important: don't buy now and pay later. Save up for the things that you want and then buy them with cash that you have.
Pretty simple when you think about it.
Not so easy to apply in real life. But a heck of a lot easier than calculating future inflationary rates and rotating colourful pie charts that are supposed to represent your life.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
A Wheelchair Ride to Disney World
Air Canada, one of the most reviled airlines in the world, has added another notch under its belt for outrageous, careless and negligent behavior. After destroying a $15,000 specialized wheelchair for a young boy suffering from a disease who was on his way to New York for a charity run in his honour, Air Canada decided that the best way to resolve this incident was by offering him and his family a free trip to Disney World. A trip to Disney World was on his list of things that he was hoping to do, so they do have the benefit of fulfilling his one of his wishes. That's great, and it was no doubt a popular idea with the PR squad who's afraid of controversy, but it fails to gloss over some pretty obvious problems.
First off, why did Air Canada dismantle such an important piece of machinery without consulting the owner? A wheelchair is not a pair of skis for someone's vacation to Aspen. At $15,000, this wheelchair was probably a complicated and specialized piece of equipment. What would have possessed them to dismantle it? Was it because it was easier to board? Space limitations?
Fair enough, there may have been space limitations, but why not consult the people beforehand? And if it wasn't possible to fit the wheelchair, maybe it was somewhat irresponsible of them to board the owner of the chair. Airlines are obligated to accommodate clients with accessibility issues, and one of those things should be to ensure that their equipment will be transported in a manner that is safe and functional. And if they can't do it, they should not accept the client. It's a safety issue, not a nuisance like bags of peanuts or the surly look on the faces of flight attendants when you ask them for blankets.
It seems that Air Canada can add "treating clients with accessibility issues badly" to their list of things that they do wrong, along with canceling flights at the last minute with no consideration for alternate arrangements for their clients. While it's annoying that they treat their regular clients like mindless cattle and throw their bags with angry abandon on board, it's just criminal for them to treat their special needs clients badly. It's negligent and disrespectful, and in some cases, it could potentially be dangerous.
Air Canada will have to do a serious check on its attitude and how it will treat these clients in the future, because there's no amount of Disney World trips that will make up for this kind of treatment which could potentially have implications down the line. Being known as the airline which can't accommodate special needs properly is not the reputation that this airline wants to have.
Note to Air Canada- when you take this kid to Disney World, don't dismantle his wheelchair or lose it along the way. Because then your reputation will be sealed. But it would be a great chance for a new slogan for the company: Air Canada- treating everyone badly, equally.
First off, why did Air Canada dismantle such an important piece of machinery without consulting the owner? A wheelchair is not a pair of skis for someone's vacation to Aspen. At $15,000, this wheelchair was probably a complicated and specialized piece of equipment. What would have possessed them to dismantle it? Was it because it was easier to board? Space limitations?
Fair enough, there may have been space limitations, but why not consult the people beforehand? And if it wasn't possible to fit the wheelchair, maybe it was somewhat irresponsible of them to board the owner of the chair. Airlines are obligated to accommodate clients with accessibility issues, and one of those things should be to ensure that their equipment will be transported in a manner that is safe and functional. And if they can't do it, they should not accept the client. It's a safety issue, not a nuisance like bags of peanuts or the surly look on the faces of flight attendants when you ask them for blankets.
It seems that Air Canada can add "treating clients with accessibility issues badly" to their list of things that they do wrong, along with canceling flights at the last minute with no consideration for alternate arrangements for their clients. While it's annoying that they treat their regular clients like mindless cattle and throw their bags with angry abandon on board, it's just criminal for them to treat their special needs clients badly. It's negligent and disrespectful, and in some cases, it could potentially be dangerous.
Air Canada will have to do a serious check on its attitude and how it will treat these clients in the future, because there's no amount of Disney World trips that will make up for this kind of treatment which could potentially have implications down the line. Being known as the airline which can't accommodate special needs properly is not the reputation that this airline wants to have.
Note to Air Canada- when you take this kid to Disney World, don't dismantle his wheelchair or lose it along the way. Because then your reputation will be sealed. But it would be a great chance for a new slogan for the company: Air Canada- treating everyone badly, equally.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Is Nothing Sacred?
As if Facebook wasn't bad enough, serving as a useless time vacuum sucking in people away from their real lives to occupy a self-interested online vortex where friends are mouse clicks rather than real people, it turns out that Facebook can also nail you if you're cheating on your partner.
While it's well-known that suspicious spouses will use phones and other techniques to spy on their cheating mates, it appears that Facebook has made catching a thief a whole lot easier, particularly when that thief is dumb enough to broadcast to the world that they're successfully cheating and getting away with it.
It's funny that it used to be a source of shame to be having an affair, that there used to be an actual social stigma associated with cheaters and that in certain places, the local known 'cheater' often became a social pariah. But now, it appears that not only is cheating socially acceptable, it's also become something of a source of pride for people, who brag about their exploits to their many online friends and even create separate accounts to keep track of their numerous conquests.
An article posted to yahoo.ca today tells the interesting and twisted story of a woman who found out that her husband had a second wedding through his Facebook account. It's a rather convoluted story where the husband denies that they were ever married, despite their wedding ceremony having been performed off the coast of Italy, facilitated by a wedding company that still features their wedding pictures as part of their advertising campaign on their current website. The husband then got engaged to a new woman in a different state, proposed to her, and then married her in a Walt Disney Prince Charming and Sleeping Beauty ceremony. He then posted these photos to his Facebook account, because, of course, wives don't look at Facebook and women don't google their partners online.
Further to this craziness, the husband then decided that he had enough of divorce proceedings from the wife he claims he's not married to and then stole the 2 children from the home that he shares with his not-wife and ran off with them to the home of his Sleeping Beauty Facebook wife.
The most hilarious part about reading this article, with its tangled web of lies, deceit and audacity, is this line here:
"Aftab, a lawyer who runs the online protection site WiredSafety.org, says the lesson to be learned from the Frances' case is that no form of communication is sacred anymore."
Is nothing sacred? Facebook, MySpace, cell phones? Oh dear Lord, say it isn't true! A man can't cheat on his wife and then brag to the public about it because his communications can and will be used against him? Who would have thought that incriminating text and photos could be so, well, incriminating? And who would have thought that (gasp!) they could be used against you?
It surprises me that the observation was made that communication forms are not sacred anymore, but the person didn't mention that other sacred thing which is obviously being undermined in this situation: marriage. Once considered a sacred institution, marriage is more in danger than ever of becoming as obsolete as the paper it comes on. Why? Well, with more opportunities to cheat and to become anyone that they want to be online, the inconveniences of working at a relationship and the unpleasantness of real human contact may just be a thing of the past.
Is this man really astonished that communication forms can be used to catch cheaters and is not in the least astonished by the selfish and mean behavior of actually being a cheater?
Betraying someone's trust is probably more damaging than having unauthorized people peek at your online profile where you aired your dirty laundry in the first place.
I'm guessing that the conversation to follow would look something like this:
"How dare you betray my trust and love for you by marrying another woman behind my back and then adding to the humiliation by posting happy photos of you online for all of your friends and family to see? And what if our 2 children had seen it? They would then know that you're a cheat."
"How dare you look at my Facebook page when I haven't right clicked your request to be added as a friend?"
It's pretty obvious where the bigger crime is.
Is nothing sacred? Is there no way to protect a man or a woman's right to cheat on their spouse and then brag about it in peace?
Who would have thought that behavior online would have such real consequences in real life?
The real lesson here is not that no form of communication is sacred. The real lesson is that mean, underhanded and sneaky behavior should be kept to oneself and not shared with the world. Cover your tracks, people! Facebook can't save you from shame.
While it's well-known that suspicious spouses will use phones and other techniques to spy on their cheating mates, it appears that Facebook has made catching a thief a whole lot easier, particularly when that thief is dumb enough to broadcast to the world that they're successfully cheating and getting away with it.
It's funny that it used to be a source of shame to be having an affair, that there used to be an actual social stigma associated with cheaters and that in certain places, the local known 'cheater' often became a social pariah. But now, it appears that not only is cheating socially acceptable, it's also become something of a source of pride for people, who brag about their exploits to their many online friends and even create separate accounts to keep track of their numerous conquests.
An article posted to yahoo.ca today tells the interesting and twisted story of a woman who found out that her husband had a second wedding through his Facebook account. It's a rather convoluted story where the husband denies that they were ever married, despite their wedding ceremony having been performed off the coast of Italy, facilitated by a wedding company that still features their wedding pictures as part of their advertising campaign on their current website. The husband then got engaged to a new woman in a different state, proposed to her, and then married her in a Walt Disney Prince Charming and Sleeping Beauty ceremony. He then posted these photos to his Facebook account, because, of course, wives don't look at Facebook and women don't google their partners online.
Further to this craziness, the husband then decided that he had enough of divorce proceedings from the wife he claims he's not married to and then stole the 2 children from the home that he shares with his not-wife and ran off with them to the home of his Sleeping Beauty Facebook wife.
The most hilarious part about reading this article, with its tangled web of lies, deceit and audacity, is this line here:
"Aftab, a lawyer who runs the online protection site WiredSafety.org, says the lesson to be learned from the Frances' case is that no form of communication is sacred anymore."
Is nothing sacred? Facebook, MySpace, cell phones? Oh dear Lord, say it isn't true! A man can't cheat on his wife and then brag to the public about it because his communications can and will be used against him? Who would have thought that incriminating text and photos could be so, well, incriminating? And who would have thought that (gasp!) they could be used against you?
It surprises me that the observation was made that communication forms are not sacred anymore, but the person didn't mention that other sacred thing which is obviously being undermined in this situation: marriage. Once considered a sacred institution, marriage is more in danger than ever of becoming as obsolete as the paper it comes on. Why? Well, with more opportunities to cheat and to become anyone that they want to be online, the inconveniences of working at a relationship and the unpleasantness of real human contact may just be a thing of the past.
Is this man really astonished that communication forms can be used to catch cheaters and is not in the least astonished by the selfish and mean behavior of actually being a cheater?
Betraying someone's trust is probably more damaging than having unauthorized people peek at your online profile where you aired your dirty laundry in the first place.
I'm guessing that the conversation to follow would look something like this:
"How dare you betray my trust and love for you by marrying another woman behind my back and then adding to the humiliation by posting happy photos of you online for all of your friends and family to see? And what if our 2 children had seen it? They would then know that you're a cheat."
"How dare you look at my Facebook page when I haven't right clicked your request to be added as a friend?"
It's pretty obvious where the bigger crime is.
Is nothing sacred? Is there no way to protect a man or a woman's right to cheat on their spouse and then brag about it in peace?
Who would have thought that behavior online would have such real consequences in real life?
The real lesson here is not that no form of communication is sacred. The real lesson is that mean, underhanded and sneaky behavior should be kept to oneself and not shared with the world. Cover your tracks, people! Facebook can't save you from shame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)