North Korea put the international community on its heels earlier this week with the news that they were going to launch a satellite to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the birth of their fearless leader. While they innocently claimed that it was a weather satellite, the rest of the world had its own ideas of what the test was for. USA was particularly concerned, with the intention of suspending a food aid program to North Korea in exchange for a rollback of its nuclear programs, while neighbouring Asian nations were more concerned about the safety of their citizens.
While there's been much ado about the test, including some scientists revealing that North Korea's geographical reality poses a logistic problem for the launch, the regime has remained defiant. Faced with obstacles ranging from political to scientific, the regime stayed true to its plan and vision, eschewing international concern and basic geography. And the end result? They failed.
It has a certain poetic quality to it, and yet, a mitigated amount of hilarity. It's kind of like the teenager who decides he's leaving home and decides he will defiantly take the family car with him, despite the fact that he has no plans and no insurance or license and is very likely to be grounded for life. Maybe he can't even drive. The truly important thing is that he gets to leave. Then, faced with all the potential consequences of his actions, and amid calls to reason from friends and family, he sets off on his quest, only to run out of gas two blocks down the street.
North Korea is not going to be so easily discouraged. They will keep testing and they will keep working on their projects, some of which may or may not include the destruction of its neighbours, South Korea for example, or ones a little farther away, like the USA. They will probably continue to play innocent and make it seem like they're very interested in weather. They will probably recklessly continue to defy and nudge the international community like the kid who loses it one day in the playground and chucks a marble at the biggest kid in school.
The international community is going to have to keep watching North Korea and keep issuing warnings when it steps over the line. But for today, it looks like they might have foiled their own evil plan.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Hear No Evil
A Greek reporter was pelted with eggs and yogourt by a group of protesters on the air who had issue with his invited guest. It turns out that the guest in question was a neo-Nazi and member of a highly controversial nationalist party with anti-immigration viewpoints. While it's laudable that the protesters came out to express their views, they might have done more harm than good.
On the one hand, they didn't target the right person. The invited guest was not the victim of the food fight, the host of the show was. He put on a brave front, allowing the attack to happen with little resistance and then quietly walked off set. Their attack would have been more successful and arguably more fun to watch had they had the right person.
On the other hand, nobody got a chance to hear what the guest might have had to say. While it's always dangerous to give a platform to the extremists and pro-hate groups, it might be even more dangerous to cover our ears and pretend that they don't exist. Part of being able to combat evil is to know it; denial and ignorance has rarely taught us anything. Ironically, ignorance is the very thing that is used by pro-hate groups when they defend their views.
Years back, there were groups that wanted to ban Mein Kampf by Hitler because of its views. Regretably, this document is a piece of history, and should serve as a warning to future generations of the dangers of hate and violence. It does not propagate more hate if we're smart in our approach and educate people properly on the importance of tolerance. If you're going to fight a problem, you need to know what you're fighting against.
Pro-hate groups will do themselves in by their arguments, which are often entirely intellectually void and unsupported by things like science and reason. They should not be given a long leash to say and do whatever they want, but we should be aware of them and why they're wrong.
On the one hand, they didn't target the right person. The invited guest was not the victim of the food fight, the host of the show was. He put on a brave front, allowing the attack to happen with little resistance and then quietly walked off set. Their attack would have been more successful and arguably more fun to watch had they had the right person.
On the other hand, nobody got a chance to hear what the guest might have had to say. While it's always dangerous to give a platform to the extremists and pro-hate groups, it might be even more dangerous to cover our ears and pretend that they don't exist. Part of being able to combat evil is to know it; denial and ignorance has rarely taught us anything. Ironically, ignorance is the very thing that is used by pro-hate groups when they defend their views.
Years back, there were groups that wanted to ban Mein Kampf by Hitler because of its views. Regretably, this document is a piece of history, and should serve as a warning to future generations of the dangers of hate and violence. It does not propagate more hate if we're smart in our approach and educate people properly on the importance of tolerance. If you're going to fight a problem, you need to know what you're fighting against.
Pro-hate groups will do themselves in by their arguments, which are often entirely intellectually void and unsupported by things like science and reason. They should not be given a long leash to say and do whatever they want, but we should be aware of them and why they're wrong.
Stripping America's Rights
Getting caught with your pants down is going to take on a whole new meaning in the States, as the Supreme Court has decided that all arrested suspects may be subject to a strip search, even for a minor offense. Since the laws change from State to State, this could be for something as simple as forgetting to put on your seatbelt or some traffic violation of sorts. The argument is that this move is not excessive, since most criminals who perpetrate major crimes also commit minor crimes, sometimes on the way to committing major crimes. Which means that the seatbelt forgetting driver may also be a bomber in disguise and the only way to know, is to empower the police with the right to strip them down for explosives.
It's a spurious logic at best, considering that most of us don't think of our underwear as the primary place to hide explosives. 'Down there' should really be all about cottony softness and, on special occasions, lacey naughtiness. That's in consideration of the fact that most of us are normal.
But for that whacked out small percentage of crazies who are bent on wreaking havoc, it's really worth compromising the rights and decency of thousands of innocent citizens. After all, what is a strip search or false arrest or mistaken arrest followed by a strip search? Is it anything more than an 'inconvenience'? When you think of all the spectacular plots that will be overthrown, all the haters of America with their schemes foiled, will you really mind that cool breeze? That's the cool breeze of freedom, friends.
Yes, many people are arrested these days and sometimes, it's a mistake. The mistake could be something as simple as not being born white. It happens. Or the mistake could be someone not actually committing a crime. It also happens. But it appears that the American Supreme Court believes that the real crime is not protecting the country by subjecting people to humiliation and unnecessary fearmongering.
It was probably really difficult of them to uphold the basic principle of being considered innocent until proven guilty. By considering everyone guilty first, it's a real time saver for everyone involved in the legal process. Too bad that they exist to uphold the very principles that they're now violating.
It's a spurious logic at best, considering that most of us don't think of our underwear as the primary place to hide explosives. 'Down there' should really be all about cottony softness and, on special occasions, lacey naughtiness. That's in consideration of the fact that most of us are normal.
But for that whacked out small percentage of crazies who are bent on wreaking havoc, it's really worth compromising the rights and decency of thousands of innocent citizens. After all, what is a strip search or false arrest or mistaken arrest followed by a strip search? Is it anything more than an 'inconvenience'? When you think of all the spectacular plots that will be overthrown, all the haters of America with their schemes foiled, will you really mind that cool breeze? That's the cool breeze of freedom, friends.
Yes, many people are arrested these days and sometimes, it's a mistake. The mistake could be something as simple as not being born white. It happens. Or the mistake could be someone not actually committing a crime. It also happens. But it appears that the American Supreme Court believes that the real crime is not protecting the country by subjecting people to humiliation and unnecessary fearmongering.
It was probably really difficult of them to uphold the basic principle of being considered innocent until proven guilty. By considering everyone guilty first, it's a real time saver for everyone involved in the legal process. Too bad that they exist to uphold the very principles that they're now violating.
Hold the Beef
It's a good time to become a vegetarian in Canada. This is a point which pains me, as I have to admit that I'm a hamburgers and spaghetti kind of kid, but it looks like those childhood comfort foods may be a thing of the past as the federal budget has promised cuts to food safety workers. This means that the safety and quality of meat within and outside Canada will be compromised and the chances of contracting some nasty condition or bacteria will be increased.
With memories of the 2008 Maple Leaf foods recall due to listeria still lingering in the public's mind, it's not a great time to propose cuts to one of life's essential needs. The government tabled cuts to government services and most of them were presented as things that we could live without; you know, the red tape kind of people, the back office jobs, not front of the line service delivery. Things that we might not miss, like paper pushers and bill stampers. But when you cut something like food safety, well, that's pretty important.
In fact, it's a public health issue. Any form of outbreak from meat products in Canada would not only be detrimental to consumers, it would also be lethal to farmers and food manufacturers and kill overseas exports. The spillover effect into our health care system would also be something of a concern, not to mention the possible long term effects of food poisoning like mad cow disease. Maybe the chances of that aren't strong in Canada, but the only people who could tell us that are the food safety people, who are, unfortunately, being eliminated.
Combine this little bit of news with the pink slime scandal in the United States, and all of a sudden, going vegetarian is no longer an issue of ethics or loving cute things covered in fur. It becomes a serious health concern for oneself and our long term health. Whether we're health conscious by choice or because of a healthy fear of death, most of us don't want to consume something subpar or potentially dangerous.
In a tight fiscal environment, there are many things that we can do without, but it's a pretty common truth that humans need food to live. This is not the best area to compromise in. Most people would probably rather wait an extra week to have their passport issued instead of cutting food safety workers and seeing the quality of our food go down the tubes. Especially since tubes are what we will be using, once we get sick.
With memories of the 2008 Maple Leaf foods recall due to listeria still lingering in the public's mind, it's not a great time to propose cuts to one of life's essential needs. The government tabled cuts to government services and most of them were presented as things that we could live without; you know, the red tape kind of people, the back office jobs, not front of the line service delivery. Things that we might not miss, like paper pushers and bill stampers. But when you cut something like food safety, well, that's pretty important.
In fact, it's a public health issue. Any form of outbreak from meat products in Canada would not only be detrimental to consumers, it would also be lethal to farmers and food manufacturers and kill overseas exports. The spillover effect into our health care system would also be something of a concern, not to mention the possible long term effects of food poisoning like mad cow disease. Maybe the chances of that aren't strong in Canada, but the only people who could tell us that are the food safety people, who are, unfortunately, being eliminated.
Combine this little bit of news with the pink slime scandal in the United States, and all of a sudden, going vegetarian is no longer an issue of ethics or loving cute things covered in fur. It becomes a serious health concern for oneself and our long term health. Whether we're health conscious by choice or because of a healthy fear of death, most of us don't want to consume something subpar or potentially dangerous.
In a tight fiscal environment, there are many things that we can do without, but it's a pretty common truth that humans need food to live. This is not the best area to compromise in. Most people would probably rather wait an extra week to have their passport issued instead of cutting food safety workers and seeing the quality of our food go down the tubes. Especially since tubes are what we will be using, once we get sick.
Monday, April 2, 2012
From Hi Ho to Ho-Hum
There are a lot of career sites right now advocating that we should all go out there and achieve our goals. Helpful articles about training, retooling, strategizing, networking, using social networking and honing our career skills on off hours. All of them are flowing with can-do vigour, brimming with positivity, energizing us for hours of intense searching until we finally hit that golden nugget: the job of choice. The job that we want or that we're perfectly qualified for. Like a caffeine buzz, it hits us like a flash, and armed with thoughts of 'yes I can!', we hit the google job search button and start scrolling like we're Indiana Jones looking for clues in ancient text.
Then, like the caffeine buzz, so follows the crash. The majority of people are unhappy in their jobs. The reasons are various and unoriginal; overqualified, underemployed, working in a non-relevant sector, stuck in a career with no advancement opportunities, boredom, bad management, cut backs, overload. Faced with all these things, it makes sense that there are loads of encouraging articles to help motivate the masses. The 'you are here forever' articles probably didn't make the last editorial cut.
Here's the problem with the perky messages: despite their valiant attempt to prop up the worker and empower them with options, many of them do not have those options. With a hard-hit economy, many people are simply losing their jobs, regardless of satisfaction levels. With so many cuts, the prevalent attitude of employers is that the remaining workforce should be happy 'just to have a job' and this does not make them receptive to leave for training opportunities or the like. It also doesn't serve the purpose of most employers to have employees go on training for professional development when they are understaffed. This is a luxury afforded to companies in prosperous times.
Searching for new opportunities in off hours may sound like a viable option, but just like 'popping by the gym after work', this option is usually better as a thought rather than a reality. Many of us have items in our personal lives to attend to outside of work, and some days, we just want to go right home and plop ourselves onto the couch after dinner. That doesn't make us shiftless or unambitious; energy, like many other things in life, is finite.
So is there any good news out of all this? Well, the average worker is not alone in their thoughts, their feelings and their obstacles to a better life. And as the articles rightly state, it is a matter of personal choice to better one's life or situation. But maybe instead of chasing after the rainbow of the perfect job, we should look to be happy elsewhere, in some other aspect of our life. Unlike the top 1% that doesn't need to worry about work and making a living, most of us don't have the choice of loving what we do. We can't refuse to work, but we can refuse to be defined by our work.
Then, like the caffeine buzz, so follows the crash. The majority of people are unhappy in their jobs. The reasons are various and unoriginal; overqualified, underemployed, working in a non-relevant sector, stuck in a career with no advancement opportunities, boredom, bad management, cut backs, overload. Faced with all these things, it makes sense that there are loads of encouraging articles to help motivate the masses. The 'you are here forever' articles probably didn't make the last editorial cut.
Here's the problem with the perky messages: despite their valiant attempt to prop up the worker and empower them with options, many of them do not have those options. With a hard-hit economy, many people are simply losing their jobs, regardless of satisfaction levels. With so many cuts, the prevalent attitude of employers is that the remaining workforce should be happy 'just to have a job' and this does not make them receptive to leave for training opportunities or the like. It also doesn't serve the purpose of most employers to have employees go on training for professional development when they are understaffed. This is a luxury afforded to companies in prosperous times.
Searching for new opportunities in off hours may sound like a viable option, but just like 'popping by the gym after work', this option is usually better as a thought rather than a reality. Many of us have items in our personal lives to attend to outside of work, and some days, we just want to go right home and plop ourselves onto the couch after dinner. That doesn't make us shiftless or unambitious; energy, like many other things in life, is finite.
So is there any good news out of all this? Well, the average worker is not alone in their thoughts, their feelings and their obstacles to a better life. And as the articles rightly state, it is a matter of personal choice to better one's life or situation. But maybe instead of chasing after the rainbow of the perfect job, we should look to be happy elsewhere, in some other aspect of our life. Unlike the top 1% that doesn't need to worry about work and making a living, most of us don't have the choice of loving what we do. We can't refuse to work, but we can refuse to be defined by our work.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Lights, Camera, Cabinet!
In these uncertain times of political unrest, economic uncertainty and raging debates about retirement age, it's nice to know that Canadian members of Parliament are taking time out to discuss something which is critically important: namely, themselves. Yes, the elected members of Canada's Parliament always seem to find time to debate serious issues like their pay increases and the general laziness of the public service, even when dealing with the issues of critical global importance. Their latest? How they appear on camera.
After a few youtube videos displaying less than professional behavior of certain MPs checking out their hair and falling asleep during debate period, the MPs have decided to debate the issue of camera usage in the House of Commons. They're arguing that the use of wide span shots which sometimes showcase the empty seats while in session 'make them look bad' and that they would like to know which cameras are on them and when. Presumably, these measures would make all the parties look good by not featuring their absenteeism rates or their propensity for power naps.
While a riveting hour or so of parliamentary debate often takes a back seat to reality programming like the Bachelor over dinner, the use of cameras in Parliament are useful for so many reasons. On the one hand, they make great youtube videos. Who doesn't want to see a rookie MP earning $157,000 a year for the next 4 years due to his big win in the last election fall asleep in the House? It's a great giggle for us Canadian taxpayers who pay out that salary in the hope that the said MP will actually voice our opinions in the House when a serious social issue concerning our welfare is being debated- or voted on.
On the other hand, they also capture those rare gems that make political life in Canada so fascinating, like John Baird yelling at someone over something or Justin Trudeau's slow and gradual transformation into Johnny Depp. Sometimes there's drama like when the romance went sour between Peter McKay and Brenda Stronach and he called her a bitch while in session. Oh yes he did! It was good enough for a Real MPs of Ottawa reality series to launch on Slice. These precious memories would all be lost to the Canadian public if the MPs pass a bill to tightly control tv coverage of the House. It may make the business of the House seems sterile and stiff- like government or something.
The House of Commons is a public venue and it houses public servants of the highest rank and paygrade, which are the elected MPs. The bottom line is that they are public people now and cameras are just par for the course. If the MPs don't want to look silly, then it's their job not to look silly by conducting themselves like the mature, intelligent, well-grounded people that they pretended they were during their election campaigns. Now that they're comfortably in their seats of power, it's time for them to prove that they belong there by doing simple things like showing up and staying awake. And maybe learning to apply blush.
After a few youtube videos displaying less than professional behavior of certain MPs checking out their hair and falling asleep during debate period, the MPs have decided to debate the issue of camera usage in the House of Commons. They're arguing that the use of wide span shots which sometimes showcase the empty seats while in session 'make them look bad' and that they would like to know which cameras are on them and when. Presumably, these measures would make all the parties look good by not featuring their absenteeism rates or their propensity for power naps.
While a riveting hour or so of parliamentary debate often takes a back seat to reality programming like the Bachelor over dinner, the use of cameras in Parliament are useful for so many reasons. On the one hand, they make great youtube videos. Who doesn't want to see a rookie MP earning $157,000 a year for the next 4 years due to his big win in the last election fall asleep in the House? It's a great giggle for us Canadian taxpayers who pay out that salary in the hope that the said MP will actually voice our opinions in the House when a serious social issue concerning our welfare is being debated- or voted on.
On the other hand, they also capture those rare gems that make political life in Canada so fascinating, like John Baird yelling at someone over something or Justin Trudeau's slow and gradual transformation into Johnny Depp. Sometimes there's drama like when the romance went sour between Peter McKay and Brenda Stronach and he called her a bitch while in session. Oh yes he did! It was good enough for a Real MPs of Ottawa reality series to launch on Slice. These precious memories would all be lost to the Canadian public if the MPs pass a bill to tightly control tv coverage of the House. It may make the business of the House seems sterile and stiff- like government or something.
The House of Commons is a public venue and it houses public servants of the highest rank and paygrade, which are the elected MPs. The bottom line is that they are public people now and cameras are just par for the course. If the MPs don't want to look silly, then it's their job not to look silly by conducting themselves like the mature, intelligent, well-grounded people that they pretended they were during their election campaigns. Now that they're comfortably in their seats of power, it's time for them to prove that they belong there by doing simple things like showing up and staying awake. And maybe learning to apply blush.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
An Idea of Wealth
The Wealthy Barmaid may be an eye-catching title for an article which was posted to Yahoo's website (http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthy-barmaid-s-rrsp-is-2-income-properties.html)but a closer read of the article paints a less than rosy picture. The article is centered around the example of Melanie Bajrovic, a highly educated young woman with multiple jobs and a great work ethic, not to mention two income properties that she's planning on using as her own version of RRSPs as she works in bars and restaurants in the meantime. There are a lot of good points for Bajrovic; she's smart, she works a lot, and she's very frugal. All of that would make her a shining beacon to the current lazy, entitled generation of kids who think that budget is a four letter word. And yet...
And yet Bajrovic has been working since she was 14 and has saved well over 75% of her earnings. Never mind the fact that 14 is well below the legal working age; the saving has been largely a result of her not having expenses. Bajrovic continues to live at home and has managed to buy property based on small downpayments and home renovations covered by her parents (to the tune of $30,000). She keeps her social life to a minimum and lives off $100 a week or so to cover her cell phone, gas and cigarettes. She works a lot of the time, shift work with more than one job. You have to wonder: is this truly a model?
Most of us equate wealth with independence. It means we're self-sufficient and that we can make our own choices. Living at home is not a form of self-sufficiency, even while paying your own way on certain bills. Being smart financially is about balancing your income with your expenses and not allowing one to exceed the other; it's not about eliminating those expenses by letting someone else take them on, which is what her parents are doing by subsidizing all of her living expenses.
There is a lot to be said about living on your own. It's not just about being able to balance a budget, but about essential life skills, and that includes cooking, cleaning, laundry and achieving worklife balance. It's also nice to have personal space, me time and to take pride in ownership when you've worked hard to live somewhere. Privacy and freedom are a big part of wealth, not just dollars and cents.
Then there's the whole social life aspect of this equation. While it's true that many of us cut down on expenses by not socializing or going out on the town, what exactly is the consequence of a minimal social life? It doesn't sound fun, fulfilling or meaningful; in fact, it sounds downright lonely, in the old Dickensian sense of staying at home with a bowl of porridge before heading to another day in a chilly office. Aren't friends more important than money?
The economy is tough and jobs are hard to find. Everyone has to make it their own way, and it's great that some people have found a way to make it work for them. But I think it's important for people to remember that wealth is not just about money; it's also about quality of life and happiness and all those intangible things that we sometimes take for granted.
And yet Bajrovic has been working since she was 14 and has saved well over 75% of her earnings. Never mind the fact that 14 is well below the legal working age; the saving has been largely a result of her not having expenses. Bajrovic continues to live at home and has managed to buy property based on small downpayments and home renovations covered by her parents (to the tune of $30,000). She keeps her social life to a minimum and lives off $100 a week or so to cover her cell phone, gas and cigarettes. She works a lot of the time, shift work with more than one job. You have to wonder: is this truly a model?
Most of us equate wealth with independence. It means we're self-sufficient and that we can make our own choices. Living at home is not a form of self-sufficiency, even while paying your own way on certain bills. Being smart financially is about balancing your income with your expenses and not allowing one to exceed the other; it's not about eliminating those expenses by letting someone else take them on, which is what her parents are doing by subsidizing all of her living expenses.
There is a lot to be said about living on your own. It's not just about being able to balance a budget, but about essential life skills, and that includes cooking, cleaning, laundry and achieving worklife balance. It's also nice to have personal space, me time and to take pride in ownership when you've worked hard to live somewhere. Privacy and freedom are a big part of wealth, not just dollars and cents.
Then there's the whole social life aspect of this equation. While it's true that many of us cut down on expenses by not socializing or going out on the town, what exactly is the consequence of a minimal social life? It doesn't sound fun, fulfilling or meaningful; in fact, it sounds downright lonely, in the old Dickensian sense of staying at home with a bowl of porridge before heading to another day in a chilly office. Aren't friends more important than money?
The economy is tough and jobs are hard to find. Everyone has to make it their own way, and it's great that some people have found a way to make it work for them. But I think it's important for people to remember that wealth is not just about money; it's also about quality of life and happiness and all those intangible things that we sometimes take for granted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)