I have had a number of people inquire from me this year (and previous years) about them selling stuff on eBay and / or Craigslist. Questions about the safety and reliability of online shopping continue to be asked, as well as whether it's easy to set up, whether it's hassle-free, and whether better deals can be had. I have some strong opinions here, and will share them with you, since you can find many websites that simply detail the pros and cons of each from a rather objective perspective, but you won't find many places giving honest, experience-based critique of both systems. Again, all this is based on my own experience of being both an eBay seller and buyer for seven-plus years, as well as being a craigslist buyer and seller for about a year now. My goal here, even though I inject my own opinions, is not to draw any definitive conclusions, but instead, leave it up to you to make an informed decision.
First, eBay. It is international in scope, with over a hundred million accounts globally. It has been around since 1995. Here are some advantages of using eBay to buy and to sell:
Advantages of using eBay to sell: 1) Greater audience exposure. People from other cities, provinces/States, and even countries see your product. I have felt the impact of this, as I have dealt with many out of town/province/and country customers (I only deal with the U.S. and Canada for ease of communication and shipping reasons). If eBay wasn't around, I wouldn't be able to find buyers for a lot of the old books and out of print CDs and knick knacks that only very specific persons would want. 2) Feedback system - you see a record of how other sellers have rated the buyer's ability to pay quick and respond. As a result of this, I have been able to, on numerous occasions, made a judgement call and deny a sale to someone since they had a fairly volatile history of transactions. 3) There is a forced accountability and commitment level - people can't just back out once they win an auction or purchase something through Buy-It-Now. This still doesn't guarantee that you'll be paid, but if you're not, you can get your listing fees back - it's still a hassle though. But having a more or less legally binding contract, would weed out a number of the non-serious buyers. 4) Setting up a seller account is relatively quick and painless, and requires credit card authorization to somewhat confirm your identity, as well as a means to charge your fees (see below). 5) It's a good way to make a few extra bucks, selling stuff that you'd get very little for at a local garage sale, for much more to someone who actually wants it or is looking for it. It can be a potentially long-term or full-time income opportunity that affords one the flexibility to stay home and work your own hours (there are disadvantages of this as well, as far as being stuck with merchandise as well as the seasonal cyclical nature of sales and some items). 7) You can post as many photos of the item as you like in as large of a resolution as you think your buyers' bandwidth can handle. When posting photos, you can save a ton of dough by not using eBay's fee-based picture service, but rather, hosting them on your own web space and linking them to your listing.
Disadvantages of using eBay to sell: 1) eBay is a target of many phishing scams. Sellers will undoubtedly face a lot of phony messages from phony buyers eventually, but even more disturbing than that are the amount of schemes that go through email that tell you your eBay account is suspended and click here if you want to reactivate. The link will then take you to a page that looks exactly like eBay, but if you look at a URL, it is somewhere totally different and their goal is to capture your login ID and password for unscrupulous use later. 2) There are fees charged to list products (fees vary based on many factors such as starting price and features desired on the listing), and these fees are charged irrespective of whether the product sells or not. There are also fees charged on the final sale of the product as well, so factor all these fees into your final selling price. 3) eBay forces their sellers to accept PayPal (owned by eBay) as the default payment method. There are ways around this, but it takes more work. I do not list the use of PayPal as an advantage, because I do not believe a monopoly of payment methods is considered a benefit, and from my experience, I have been a victim of a paypal scam (through no fault of mine) and Paypal ended up siding with the buyer, who had his credit card stolen and was issued a chargeback, which then hit Paypal, which then hit me. Now I am out the $600.00 U.S. as well as the the item I sold). I try to avoid PayPal like the plague, even though I know that I will need to use it for transactions. I always encourage my buyers to pick up locally and pay me cash so that eBay and PayPal get squat. eBay will also specifically target other payment systems and will not allow their use on eBay (like Western Union - there are ways around this too) 4) Internal eBay spam - if you use the "My Messages" internal eBay messaging system, not only will you eventually get messages in the nature of what I have described in point #1, but you will be innundated with eBay internal messages which include mostly ads, promotions, etc. 5) More often than not, you will need to ship the item, which also runs the risk of potentially undercharging or overcharing shipping amounts. You then will need to worry about the package getting there on time and in the right condition. You also need to worry about scams on the receiving end - particularly selling stuff like technology items, in regards to users swapping out good parts for defective parts and claiming you sold them defective parts. My suggestion to you is to record all serial numbers before shipping. Lost packages can be a hassle - for larger items, I strongly suggest insurance. Also, unless you send to the U.S. via a trackable means (Small or Light Packet does not qualify), you are at the mercy of a potentially dishonest buyer. 6) eBay has some pretty silly (sorry, can't be objective here) restrictions on what you can sell. Some things are common sense, that should not be sold anywhere. But if you have some restore CDs from a computer you bought, and the computer died, eBay won't be able to sell the CDs. While firearms are banned from being sold on eBay, air guns and airsoft guns can't be sold on eBay either, even though you can buy them in stores (eBay requires its account holders to be 18-and-over, so there should be no reason why things airguns can't be sold on eBay). 7) eBay forums are censured - if you speak about about why Western Union should be used, or encourage people to use Craigslist, your messages will be filtered and censured. That's just how a monopoly works. 8) Their technical support or customer support absolutely sucks. You try to send them any suggestion or concern, and 10 times out of 10, they will be sending you back a canned pre-filled response. You respond back to that saying they didn't answer your question, and you'll get even more canned pre-filled responses, until you give up. Their customer service department are a bunch of useless mofos. The customer service, or lack thereof, applies to both selling and buying. 9) FEES! They add up - you have listing fees + end of auction / listing fees + paypal fees. 10) You can't sell services on eBay? Why? Probably because with services, it will be done outside of eBay and as a result, they can't get their grubby hands on your hard-earned money.
Advantages of using eBay to Buy: 1) You will more often than not get a good price on a product, better than retail. 2) You can almost always get a gently used item which saves you a significant amount of money. 3) For the most part, you legally avoid having to pay retail sales tax via a private sale, which everyone appreciates. 4) There are a plethora of items that you cannot find anywhere else other than on eBay - your selection of items is massive. 5) Unlike Craigslist, you will likely get, on the good auctions, a good set of photos of what you are buying, which helps make the listing more attractive. 6) You see the seller's record, so you know what others have said about him/her, and whether they have a reputable record of doing business.
Disadvantages of using eBay to Buy: Most of this is pretty common sense, but I'll highlight it nonetheless. 1) You will, more than likely - I'd say almost always, get hosed on shipping. Due to the exorbitant costs involved with doing business on eBay, unscrupulous sellers will generally jack the price up on shipping to recoup some of their costs back. Other sellers will, at eBay's displeasure, though I'm not sure if this actually illegal, sell a TV for $1.00, but charge $450.00 in shipping. That way, the fees only apply to the $1.00 final sale charge. As a general rule, however, shipping prices tend to be inflated on eBay, so factor that into your overall cost of purchase. 2) Item(s) may not be as described. This is a general risk that you take when you decide to buy something you can't see/feel. Do your research on the item, only buy from auctions where the seller has 100% positive feedback and has at least 50 seller feedbacks. Try to find auctions where the item is located locally and the seller will allow you to pickup (this saves the seller eBay fees too, and I greatly encourage this). You can then meet the seller and inspect the item. Sellers who allow pickup tend to be much more customer-focussed, have less to hide with their products, and are not out to hose you. 3) You can potentially be locked in a bidding war with someone else who wants the item, at which point the product's price will be jacked up, perhaps more than what it's worth. 4) You may find a listing that you like, but the seller won't sell to you if you're in Canada. 5) You may find something that you like, but the seller is using eBay as a livelihood, and as a result, has a registered business and charges taxes on the sale. Boo! 6) Some auctions end at really bad times where you're not around. 7) I was going to include this with the shipping point, but I want this point to have its own, unrelated bullet. One distinct advantage of buying on eBay is that you may find a local seller in your area (or even your street), but because of their greed, or their social inept skills, or because they are hiding something, will not allow you to pick it up to save on money. I would recommend that you never do business with these people. For someone who is going to charge me $35.00 to ship a golf club, when they live six blocks away, is a little ridiculous. I specifically tell them that they lost a potential sale because they are being such an greedy arse.
Now, onto Craigslist, or CL for short. CL has been around for about 10 years, and unlike eBay, is more of a localized way of selling. CL has locales in many cities in many countries. For instance, to see the Toronto, Ontario, Canada listings on CL, the URL would be http://toronto.craigslist.com. CL is much more of a grassroots old fashioned classified ads style of listing. Here are some of the advantages and disadvantages of selling and buying on Craigslist.
Advantages to selling on Craigslist: 1) the most obvious one: NO FEES! There are no fees to list, no fees for items when sold. 2) the listing stays on for 45 days and if you wish to relist after that, it's a piece of cake. 3) you are targeting a local audience so more often than not, you can meet up with the buyer locally and they pay you cash and you are done. NO FEES! 4) There are virtually no restrictions to what you can sell, as long as it is within the bounds of decency and the law. This is what an open marketplace should be. People can sell their consumer products, but also sell property and services (services is something you can't buy on eBay). You can sell your ability to teach English, you services as a landscaper, painter, or you can even sell yourself in other ways (use your imagination here). 5) There are a lot of very local, very specific, time-sensitive things you can buy on Craigslist, such as tickets to a local event. People fundraise for their kids using Craigslist. 6) There is a tremendously long character length you can use for your title, which unlike eBay, allows you to put in even more information to attract buyers. 7) You don't even need an account to sell on Craigslist - just an email address, which one one sees (they just see the CL forwarding email address).
Disadvantages to selling on Craigslist: 1) No forced accountability or commitment level. People can and have backed out of transactions, even once arrangements to meet are made. 2) you only have a limit of 4 photos that you can publish, and they end up being resized to very small photos. You can link other photos, but it's not as easy as on eBay. 3) The scope of buyers is local, so you are severely limited in your sales. While eBay is a long-term viable option for income for many, using Craigslist is much less an option due to its dramatically reduced exposure.
Advantages to buying on Craigslist: 1) If you need an item quickly, you can generally arrange the deal within a very short time period. The fastest sale I've done is about 15 minutes after I listed the item. 2) it's local, so you don't have to worry about not only paying shipping costs, but grossly inflated shipping costs. 3) This is a disadvantage for a seller, but an advantage for a buyer - you can possibly or negotiate the price of the item. Of course, there is a reasonable offer and then there is lowballing. Beware that you respect the bounds of professional business. Some sellers, including myself, don't take too kindly to lowballing prices. I'd rather not have the sale than to deal with uber-Scrooge.
Diadvantages to buying on Craigslist: 1) Higher risk tolerance, since there is no identifying information exchanged. As a fictitious example, let's say that I were to buy a TV from you on Craigslist, I'd respond to the ad - you'd contact me back and we'd agree to meet somewhere. Of course, I have no idea if the TV works, so I go home plug it in, and it doesn't work. What do I do? If you were a seller with no balls, you wouldn't respond to my inquiries to have you look at it. Some sellers are good, but unlike eBay, there is no accountability, so while I've had nothing but good experiences on CL, it's still the old case of caveat emptor when it comes to buying things. 2) While it's all local, the item may be located way on the other side of the region, which would mean more travelling. The seller may also have very tight restrictions on when/where to meet. 3) Most Craigslist listings are short and to the point, so the level of detail is not there, that would make most people comfortable. 4) You know nothing about the seller - there is no history of customer satisfaction, no feedback system, no indication that they can be trusted. 5) For people who try to meet up with someone on CL for a relationship, you don't know if they are who they say they are - I've always been skeptical of people looking for their signficant others or mates using online means.
I hope this has helped you in your decision process in terms of whether you should sell on eBay or Craigslist. If you have any questions or comments, you can either email me or post a response in this blog.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Intolerant...And Damn Proud Of It
Years ago, at work, we had a situation where we were all rounded up like cattle, on very short notice to meet with a VP from HR from my company, as well as from our client's company. For sure, the 60-70 of us thought that the end was near, that we were about to lose our jobs. Well, if it was going to happen, at the very least let it be quick, and at the very least, we are all doing down together. So most of the staff shuffled into a large conference room in the office. Those who were at remote sites would dial-up and go on speakerphone. Then there was myself, who wasn't remote, but I wasn't in the office either, since I was...on vacation...but somehow was tipped off as to an important meeting, so in between changing my son's adequately soiled diapers, I dialed into the conference call. My wife also was exceptionally curious as to how they were going to tell us that we all got the corporate axe.
I was initially relieved when I heard the VPs say at the outset, "no one's losing their job today." But just as quickly, they moved on to the topic at hand and indicated, "Today, we called this meeting here because we want to talk to you all about diversity." Oh Lord, I thought, this is what this is all about? More politically correct winsome crap about racial and ethnic and cultural and (egad!) sexual orientation and how it all blends in to make the work environment a slice of utopian pie? Ugh. I know many companies have annual, if not more often, policies regarding all this kind of stuff (our biggest competitor is notorious for it, based on my conversations with a friend, a very senior IT guy, who worked at this other company for only two years, only to realize it was politically correct social engineering at its finest. He quit this IT behemoth to start work at a company of around 20 people.
Anyhow, the VPs quickly turned their attention to the matter at hand. Before I proceed further, let me provide some context here (and I'll make sure I am as vague as possible here to not provide any identifying information that can land me in the middle of litigation. I worked with a fellow who was probably in his fifties. He was a pretty senior guy, been with the company for something like 30 years. Close to retirement. Was a biker looking dude - that's all I'll say. Anyhow, the big news that day was that this guy, who was married to his wife, had decided that he was more comfortable as a woman, so he decided to get a full sex change done, so basically in a couple of weeks, he would come back with a different name, dressed like a woman, use the woman's bathroom, and in essence, all the staff, from management to end-workers, were expected to obviously not harrass this fellow in his new identity, but also to address him as a woman. I remember that there was instant response with several people who either did not feel comfortable with this voice their displeasure, and there were also several other people who objected because it was "against their religion", whatever the hell that means. Even one person indicated bluntly, "In my country, we put people to death for this!" I did pipe in and mentioned that no one should be forced to be accept this if it was against their faith or personal convictions, and the HR VP said to me, in front of the whole group, "well, you'll just have to work that out." Damn right I will. It didn't take too long for me to just that.
When I got back from my two weeks vacation, I remember walking into the office and lo and behold, before I even sat my keester into my office chair, I was greeted by the fellow who had undergone the sex change. Now, I am generally not a belligerent nor a cruel person. I am not the most patient person, I admit, but neither do I have a short fuse. However, as my wife can attest, I do stand behind my conviction, sometimes to the point that I am viewed as stubborn (which is fine with me). I also have general training in courtesies and social graces. Not to mention, I do have some Christian conviction from the Spirit that would keep in check any form of outburst I may be tempted to employ. In this case, the person said, "Hello, Jeremy." In between shock and well, more shock, I replied back, "Hello." The person knew me previously and had a sense of my view on these things, so he didn't ask me to comment on his new look. All he said was, "let's go into this corner and talk." OK, I said, let's go. So we talked for a good hour, standing on our feet, as I, out of pure curiosity, asked the person my natural questions about how a sex change worked, where the hell he came up with the 15 grand in order to get his wiener chopped off (apparently the operation was around 2 hours - not sure about the reconstruction part). To his credit, he answered all my questions seriously and with the level of detail that I needed to know, nothing more, nothing less. He said to me, "I know this is hard for you to accept," at which point I responded, "Yes. To be honest, I know that the company doesn't want me to address you as a man anymore (apparently, I could have been reprimanded for doing so) but you know that I am not comfortable with this, so how's about I just address you as "you" or by your title and last name or something. This wasn't really a request on my part - no one can force me to do something against my convictions (I could have easily made a case for reverse discrimination here, if I so felt inclined). He hesitated and then said, "well, you can always just treat me like a colleague." I was planning to do just that, since ultimately, I do have to work with him, and as long as he doesn't push his lifestyle on me at work, I don't see why we can't continue to have a cordial working relationship.
Since that time, I have noticed that every year, we seem to get some sort of mandatory readings on diversity, tolerance and what not. Even if I didn't, we are innundated with this from the media (print or broadcast or airwave-based). It's as if this is the be-all and end all solution that would somehow bring forth a new age of peace and understanding amongst all peoples.
Well, as long as I continue to draw breath in these here lungs, I will visibly fight any notion for people to be forced or coerced, whether it be through guilt or shaming, to be "tolerant". Even the pure definition of the word entails setting aside your own convictions to "stand" or "endure" something. In other words, being "tolerant" carries with it a need to suppress what you naturally believe for some other viewpoint that somehow is considered more intelligent and contemporary. Unfortunately, people who stand up to current worldly ideals, who stand out from the crowd and say, "no, I do not believe this is right", are viewed as "ignorant" and "uneducated" and "unenlightened". I will be happy to bear these labels, since I am not ever willing to sell out my own convictions in order to appease the masses, which are widely influenced by politically correct, socialist-driven agendas.
Take for instance, the current state of multiculturalism in Canada. I don't bother delving into this in great detail, since I have already covered this topic in an earlier post in April 2007 (just do a search and you'll find it). While I can, to a degree, tolerate multiculturalism (no pun intended), where I draw the line is when I am being pushed other ethnic group or cultural group or faith group's opinions as somehow having more intrinsic worth than mine. At the very least, any concerns that people have about multiculturalism are strongly suppressed. A friend of mine, who is Burmese, whose wife is Filipino (for the sake of clarity, let's consider them Asians) moved into a brand new house a few years back, after moving out of their old place, and spending some time living with his or her parents (I don't remember which), while they waited for their place to be constructed. A year or so later, they had a brand new, beautiful home, in a new neighbourhood. I went to visit him and congratulated him on his new home. While I was over, he grabbed me (no, not in that way), and took me out back where he was barbecuing and wanted my opinion on something. I found it strange that he didn't want either of our wives to hear this, but hey, I didn't concern myself too much with that. Anyhow, he told me that after six months of living there, he was planning to move again? Why, I said? He mentioned in a quiet whisper that his neighbourhood was slowly becoming a muslim one, with muslim families moving in left right and center and a mosque was being built nearby. As a Roman Catholic family, he was not comfortable with acknowledging that he wasn't liking the demographics of his neighbourhood, since people have been telling him, "you just need to be more tolerant". I told him, he doesn't need to be more tolerant, he needs to do what is comfortable for him and his family. If he doesn't want to live in a muslim neighbourhood, that's his prerogative. But unfortunately, these days, anyone who seems to want to speak out against ethnic ghettos, cultural dislikes, etc., are viewed as a bigot, racist, or whatever. I think if you continue to force viewpoints and worldviews to others who don't share them, you will in fact be creating a bigot or racist in the future. Unfortunately, the vocal politically correct socialists out there do not subscribe to the fact that gee whiz, people are in fact different, so stop trying to make everyone the same!
This was no more evident than the latest reports of a B.C. commentator indicating that those coming to Canada should adapt to Canadian culture and if you don't like that - then leave - and is also echoed by what is perceived to be a strong and controversial statement by a Quebec mayor indicating that immigrants coming into Canada should leave their cultural or religious dress at home. I know what she is getting at here (the muslim hijab and and also the burka (sp.), as well as the turban, and from the principle of it, I agree with her. Hey, people can wear whatever they want, but when you insist on wearing a hijab while playing on a girls' soccer team, or insisting on going to the voting booth with your freaking face covered...I mean, that's enough. Or refusing to unwrap your turban at airport security. I'm not talking about turbans in the RCMP - I am not generally against that, although I'd prefer the police force to have a standarized uniform of dress. What I don't like are people (and I am convinced that they are only a small segment of the ethnic community, who don't speak for everyone else) who seem to think that their cultural norms and dress should trump the cultural norms of their new country. If I were to go to a foreign country (for instance, like Singapore) and bitch and moan about not being able to chew gum or walk around with my zipper undone - they'd just tell me to cart my arse out of their country. I'd have to respect that, since there are pre-existing laws and customs that I need to abide by. No different than if my wife and I were to go into a muslim country and their custom requires women to cover their faces. I am not muslim, but since I am in the other country, I need to respect the existing culture and ways of doing things. It should be no different for those coming here.
Last year, out of curiosity at what obviously was an effort to try to put a more calming face on muslims, came this ridiculous concept of a TV show in Canada, called "Little Mosque on the Prairie". The whole thing was centered around a small rural town in Saskatchewan (I believe) in which a muslim guy was married to a Caucasian lady and it was basically muslim life in on the prairies. My wife and I tuned into this, and it was rather silly, actually. The lead actor for the male role, I really like, since he starred on the show 24 before, so it was a waste of his talent to use him in what is clearly socalist propaganda. In watching the show, you tend to forget that the wife is a white woman and there is zero focus on any of her ethnic cultural customs - the focus was more on the muslim faith and lifestyle. If you were a muslim, I'm sure you'd find some of the jokes funny. But as a Canadian born again Christian, I just didn't get it. It realy seems like after September 11, in the subsequent aftermath many muslims in Canada and the U.S. were unfairly targeted and persecuted and in some cases, killed (all of which I think is disgusting and I hope they used the full extent of the law to capture the cowards who were obviously prejudiced enough to paint all muslims with the same brush), the media has really made a concerted effort to try to give islam a more kinder, less extremist face. Problem with that is that they are not acknowledging that, just like there is a problem with crime and poverty and out of wedlock single births in the black community, there are extremists who are in the islamic community. My other concern with the media's efforts to be more "inclusive" and "tolerant", that it ends up focussing on the differences of people, and that simply widens the social relational gap between the races. I'm not saying forget the differences, but what is the point of highlighting them?
There is probably no bigger "tolerant" issue in today's society than that of the whole issue of homosexuality. In a mere 10 or 15 years or so, it seems like homosexuality has become so common place, that is is widely accepted as even fashionable or cool. If you're looking at me to affirm homosexuality, sorry people, you've come to the wrong guy. I am not one of those brainless fundamentalists brainwashed "Christians" who will one-trick-pony you with lines such as "ewww, it's wrong, it's disgusting, it's unnatural." While I agree with the root beliefs that spawn those comments, I really refrain from name calling and writing people off, since that is not what Jesus would have done. Again, I don't need to get too deep into this topic, since I've already dedicated a blog entry on my opinions on homosexuality already, and I don't need to be redundant here. Needless to say, even though homosexual thought, worldview and opinions are prevalent throughout many forms of media these days, that does not mean that people who have a problem with it should simply cave in and accept it as a viable lifestyle option (sorry folks, I don't subscribe to homosexuality being natural - you may say then, who would choose to be a homosexual if they knew how they would be treated, but I'd counter with who would choose to be a pedophile, a bank robber, a murderer, etc., even though they know the consequences - people make choices in this life, and sometimes they make choices that make their life tougher). Of course, the favourite retort word to throw into the faces of those who express disagreement with homosexuality is to call them "homophobic". Do people actually read their freaking dictionaries, or if they did, do they understand word definitions? Homophobic means to be afraid of homosexuals. That label gets liberally (no pun intended) applied to anyone who voices dissent towards homosexuality and its subsequent worldview. I know homosexuals, I have worked with homosexuals, I have had a homosexual boss, I found out after college that my college roommate was a homosexual. I am not afraid of any of these folks. I vigorously disagree with them as to their choice, and I ain't adopting it as my own - but I am not afraid of them. But being called homophobic carries a lot of stigma societally (as if being called homosexual doesn't?), so while it's a misnomer of a label, no one likes to be tarnished with it. But even if you are, who cares? You're just expressing your view. That is allowed in this country, even though the ultra left-wingers will have you believe that the only palatable view is theirs. Don't buy it, people.
Another interesting topic - married vs. common law. I make it a deliberate point to never refer to person's common-law "partner" as a "husband" or "wife". A colleague of mine corrected me a few years back when he and his girlfriend, who were common-law, had a child together. I asked him about his child and said, "he looks a lot like your girlfriend" to which he corrected me, "it's my wife", to which I responded, "sorry, I thought you weren't married", to which he replied, "we're not." So I said, well, my understanding of husband and wife are through marriage. He said that Quebec law (and many Canadian jurisdictions have similar laws) indicate that if you live with x-amount of time with someone, they are equivalent to husband and wife. That's fine if that's what Quebec law says, but that doesn't mean that I should go against my convictions and regard it as a genuine marriage. It is not. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Take abortion (yes, I know, I'm touching all the sensitive topics tonight). It's legal in Canada. Doesn't make it right to do. It is legal in Ontario for a woman to walk around with nothing on, her boobs flapping in the wind. Doesn't make it right, and judging by the fact that the vast majority of women don't walk around naked, just because a law is passed doesn't make it sensible either.
Finally, there is everyone's favourite topic, a throwback from the 60s and 70s - good old feminism. Here, there is a plethora of words to throw at anyone who doesn't subscribe to the basic tenets of feminism, which ultimately come down to trying to make people believe that women and men are equal in ALL respects, completely ignoring the fact that men and women were created with clear differences, and I'm not just talking penis vs. vagina here. Yes, I absolutely agree with employment equity when it comes to women and men. I absolutely agree with equal opportunity for education, jobs, career advancement, etc. But let's face it - any man or woman who is married can tell you, their wife or husband is very different from them. As a general rule, women tend to be more relational, enjoy talking and just being with others. Men prefer to be doing things with one another, all the while the conversational level is kept minimum, or at the very least, kept to business-like topics (ie. no heart-to-heart discussions based on feelings and emotions). There have been marriage counsellors like Emmerson Eggerichs, whose book Love and Respect is perhaps my most recommended relationship book of all time to anyone who is married or is dating. It clearly shows that while there are differences between men and women, these differences are not a master/slave type of rank difference, but rather complementary differences. However, the feminist agenda does not allow for such talk and it pushes that these differences be eliminated. But even if you look at a lesbian relationships (I don't know of too many, but I have talked with a lesbian lady at work and have met her "partner"), there is still clearly that "man/woman" role, as much as it will be argued otherwise. Of course, anyone who are argues for common sense traditional male-female roles is viewed a misogynist, sexist or worse.
These days, there are a lot of things which the socialists out there really want to push - if you disagree with them, you're labelled intolerant, which basically means you do not blindly subscribe to left-win socialist agenda. Given the fact that I can either go against my core belief system and personal convictions and be considered a champion of diversity, or to do what is unpopular and raise questions about things, only to be labelled "intolerant"...well, in that case all I have to say is that I'm intolerant...and damn proud of it.
I was initially relieved when I heard the VPs say at the outset, "no one's losing their job today." But just as quickly, they moved on to the topic at hand and indicated, "Today, we called this meeting here because we want to talk to you all about diversity." Oh Lord, I thought, this is what this is all about? More politically correct winsome crap about racial and ethnic and cultural and (egad!) sexual orientation and how it all blends in to make the work environment a slice of utopian pie? Ugh. I know many companies have annual, if not more often, policies regarding all this kind of stuff (our biggest competitor is notorious for it, based on my conversations with a friend, a very senior IT guy, who worked at this other company for only two years, only to realize it was politically correct social engineering at its finest. He quit this IT behemoth to start work at a company of around 20 people.
Anyhow, the VPs quickly turned their attention to the matter at hand. Before I proceed further, let me provide some context here (and I'll make sure I am as vague as possible here to not provide any identifying information that can land me in the middle of litigation. I worked with a fellow who was probably in his fifties. He was a pretty senior guy, been with the company for something like 30 years. Close to retirement. Was a biker looking dude - that's all I'll say. Anyhow, the big news that day was that this guy, who was married to his wife, had decided that he was more comfortable as a woman, so he decided to get a full sex change done, so basically in a couple of weeks, he would come back with a different name, dressed like a woman, use the woman's bathroom, and in essence, all the staff, from management to end-workers, were expected to obviously not harrass this fellow in his new identity, but also to address him as a woman. I remember that there was instant response with several people who either did not feel comfortable with this voice their displeasure, and there were also several other people who objected because it was "against their religion", whatever the hell that means. Even one person indicated bluntly, "In my country, we put people to death for this!" I did pipe in and mentioned that no one should be forced to be accept this if it was against their faith or personal convictions, and the HR VP said to me, in front of the whole group, "well, you'll just have to work that out." Damn right I will. It didn't take too long for me to just that.
When I got back from my two weeks vacation, I remember walking into the office and lo and behold, before I even sat my keester into my office chair, I was greeted by the fellow who had undergone the sex change. Now, I am generally not a belligerent nor a cruel person. I am not the most patient person, I admit, but neither do I have a short fuse. However, as my wife can attest, I do stand behind my conviction, sometimes to the point that I am viewed as stubborn (which is fine with me). I also have general training in courtesies and social graces. Not to mention, I do have some Christian conviction from the Spirit that would keep in check any form of outburst I may be tempted to employ. In this case, the person said, "Hello, Jeremy." In between shock and well, more shock, I replied back, "Hello." The person knew me previously and had a sense of my view on these things, so he didn't ask me to comment on his new look. All he said was, "let's go into this corner and talk." OK, I said, let's go. So we talked for a good hour, standing on our feet, as I, out of pure curiosity, asked the person my natural questions about how a sex change worked, where the hell he came up with the 15 grand in order to get his wiener chopped off (apparently the operation was around 2 hours - not sure about the reconstruction part). To his credit, he answered all my questions seriously and with the level of detail that I needed to know, nothing more, nothing less. He said to me, "I know this is hard for you to accept," at which point I responded, "Yes. To be honest, I know that the company doesn't want me to address you as a man anymore (apparently, I could have been reprimanded for doing so) but you know that I am not comfortable with this, so how's about I just address you as "you" or by your title and last name or something. This wasn't really a request on my part - no one can force me to do something against my convictions (I could have easily made a case for reverse discrimination here, if I so felt inclined). He hesitated and then said, "well, you can always just treat me like a colleague." I was planning to do just that, since ultimately, I do have to work with him, and as long as he doesn't push his lifestyle on me at work, I don't see why we can't continue to have a cordial working relationship.
Since that time, I have noticed that every year, we seem to get some sort of mandatory readings on diversity, tolerance and what not. Even if I didn't, we are innundated with this from the media (print or broadcast or airwave-based). It's as if this is the be-all and end all solution that would somehow bring forth a new age of peace and understanding amongst all peoples.
Well, as long as I continue to draw breath in these here lungs, I will visibly fight any notion for people to be forced or coerced, whether it be through guilt or shaming, to be "tolerant". Even the pure definition of the word entails setting aside your own convictions to "stand" or "endure" something. In other words, being "tolerant" carries with it a need to suppress what you naturally believe for some other viewpoint that somehow is considered more intelligent and contemporary. Unfortunately, people who stand up to current worldly ideals, who stand out from the crowd and say, "no, I do not believe this is right", are viewed as "ignorant" and "uneducated" and "unenlightened". I will be happy to bear these labels, since I am not ever willing to sell out my own convictions in order to appease the masses, which are widely influenced by politically correct, socialist-driven agendas.
Take for instance, the current state of multiculturalism in Canada. I don't bother delving into this in great detail, since I have already covered this topic in an earlier post in April 2007 (just do a search and you'll find it). While I can, to a degree, tolerate multiculturalism (no pun intended), where I draw the line is when I am being pushed other ethnic group or cultural group or faith group's opinions as somehow having more intrinsic worth than mine. At the very least, any concerns that people have about multiculturalism are strongly suppressed. A friend of mine, who is Burmese, whose wife is Filipino (for the sake of clarity, let's consider them Asians) moved into a brand new house a few years back, after moving out of their old place, and spending some time living with his or her parents (I don't remember which), while they waited for their place to be constructed. A year or so later, they had a brand new, beautiful home, in a new neighbourhood. I went to visit him and congratulated him on his new home. While I was over, he grabbed me (no, not in that way), and took me out back where he was barbecuing and wanted my opinion on something. I found it strange that he didn't want either of our wives to hear this, but hey, I didn't concern myself too much with that. Anyhow, he told me that after six months of living there, he was planning to move again? Why, I said? He mentioned in a quiet whisper that his neighbourhood was slowly becoming a muslim one, with muslim families moving in left right and center and a mosque was being built nearby. As a Roman Catholic family, he was not comfortable with acknowledging that he wasn't liking the demographics of his neighbourhood, since people have been telling him, "you just need to be more tolerant". I told him, he doesn't need to be more tolerant, he needs to do what is comfortable for him and his family. If he doesn't want to live in a muslim neighbourhood, that's his prerogative. But unfortunately, these days, anyone who seems to want to speak out against ethnic ghettos, cultural dislikes, etc., are viewed as a bigot, racist, or whatever. I think if you continue to force viewpoints and worldviews to others who don't share them, you will in fact be creating a bigot or racist in the future. Unfortunately, the vocal politically correct socialists out there do not subscribe to the fact that gee whiz, people are in fact different, so stop trying to make everyone the same!
This was no more evident than the latest reports of a B.C. commentator indicating that those coming to Canada should adapt to Canadian culture and if you don't like that - then leave - and is also echoed by what is perceived to be a strong and controversial statement by a Quebec mayor indicating that immigrants coming into Canada should leave their cultural or religious dress at home. I know what she is getting at here (the muslim hijab and and also the burka (sp.), as well as the turban, and from the principle of it, I agree with her. Hey, people can wear whatever they want, but when you insist on wearing a hijab while playing on a girls' soccer team, or insisting on going to the voting booth with your freaking face covered...I mean, that's enough. Or refusing to unwrap your turban at airport security. I'm not talking about turbans in the RCMP - I am not generally against that, although I'd prefer the police force to have a standarized uniform of dress. What I don't like are people (and I am convinced that they are only a small segment of the ethnic community, who don't speak for everyone else) who seem to think that their cultural norms and dress should trump the cultural norms of their new country. If I were to go to a foreign country (for instance, like Singapore) and bitch and moan about not being able to chew gum or walk around with my zipper undone - they'd just tell me to cart my arse out of their country. I'd have to respect that, since there are pre-existing laws and customs that I need to abide by. No different than if my wife and I were to go into a muslim country and their custom requires women to cover their faces. I am not muslim, but since I am in the other country, I need to respect the existing culture and ways of doing things. It should be no different for those coming here.
Last year, out of curiosity at what obviously was an effort to try to put a more calming face on muslims, came this ridiculous concept of a TV show in Canada, called "Little Mosque on the Prairie". The whole thing was centered around a small rural town in Saskatchewan (I believe) in which a muslim guy was married to a Caucasian lady and it was basically muslim life in on the prairies. My wife and I tuned into this, and it was rather silly, actually. The lead actor for the male role, I really like, since he starred on the show 24 before, so it was a waste of his talent to use him in what is clearly socalist propaganda. In watching the show, you tend to forget that the wife is a white woman and there is zero focus on any of her ethnic cultural customs - the focus was more on the muslim faith and lifestyle. If you were a muslim, I'm sure you'd find some of the jokes funny. But as a Canadian born again Christian, I just didn't get it. It realy seems like after September 11, in the subsequent aftermath many muslims in Canada and the U.S. were unfairly targeted and persecuted and in some cases, killed (all of which I think is disgusting and I hope they used the full extent of the law to capture the cowards who were obviously prejudiced enough to paint all muslims with the same brush), the media has really made a concerted effort to try to give islam a more kinder, less extremist face. Problem with that is that they are not acknowledging that, just like there is a problem with crime and poverty and out of wedlock single births in the black community, there are extremists who are in the islamic community. My other concern with the media's efforts to be more "inclusive" and "tolerant", that it ends up focussing on the differences of people, and that simply widens the social relational gap between the races. I'm not saying forget the differences, but what is the point of highlighting them?
There is probably no bigger "tolerant" issue in today's society than that of the whole issue of homosexuality. In a mere 10 or 15 years or so, it seems like homosexuality has become so common place, that is is widely accepted as even fashionable or cool. If you're looking at me to affirm homosexuality, sorry people, you've come to the wrong guy. I am not one of those brainless fundamentalists brainwashed "Christians" who will one-trick-pony you with lines such as "ewww, it's wrong, it's disgusting, it's unnatural." While I agree with the root beliefs that spawn those comments, I really refrain from name calling and writing people off, since that is not what Jesus would have done. Again, I don't need to get too deep into this topic, since I've already dedicated a blog entry on my opinions on homosexuality already, and I don't need to be redundant here. Needless to say, even though homosexual thought, worldview and opinions are prevalent throughout many forms of media these days, that does not mean that people who have a problem with it should simply cave in and accept it as a viable lifestyle option (sorry folks, I don't subscribe to homosexuality being natural - you may say then, who would choose to be a homosexual if they knew how they would be treated, but I'd counter with who would choose to be a pedophile, a bank robber, a murderer, etc., even though they know the consequences - people make choices in this life, and sometimes they make choices that make their life tougher). Of course, the favourite retort word to throw into the faces of those who express disagreement with homosexuality is to call them "homophobic". Do people actually read their freaking dictionaries, or if they did, do they understand word definitions? Homophobic means to be afraid of homosexuals. That label gets liberally (no pun intended) applied to anyone who voices dissent towards homosexuality and its subsequent worldview. I know homosexuals, I have worked with homosexuals, I have had a homosexual boss, I found out after college that my college roommate was a homosexual. I am not afraid of any of these folks. I vigorously disagree with them as to their choice, and I ain't adopting it as my own - but I am not afraid of them. But being called homophobic carries a lot of stigma societally (as if being called homosexual doesn't?), so while it's a misnomer of a label, no one likes to be tarnished with it. But even if you are, who cares? You're just expressing your view. That is allowed in this country, even though the ultra left-wingers will have you believe that the only palatable view is theirs. Don't buy it, people.
Another interesting topic - married vs. common law. I make it a deliberate point to never refer to person's common-law "partner" as a "husband" or "wife". A colleague of mine corrected me a few years back when he and his girlfriend, who were common-law, had a child together. I asked him about his child and said, "he looks a lot like your girlfriend" to which he corrected me, "it's my wife", to which I responded, "sorry, I thought you weren't married", to which he replied, "we're not." So I said, well, my understanding of husband and wife are through marriage. He said that Quebec law (and many Canadian jurisdictions have similar laws) indicate that if you live with x-amount of time with someone, they are equivalent to husband and wife. That's fine if that's what Quebec law says, but that doesn't mean that I should go against my convictions and regard it as a genuine marriage. It is not. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Take abortion (yes, I know, I'm touching all the sensitive topics tonight). It's legal in Canada. Doesn't make it right to do. It is legal in Ontario for a woman to walk around with nothing on, her boobs flapping in the wind. Doesn't make it right, and judging by the fact that the vast majority of women don't walk around naked, just because a law is passed doesn't make it sensible either.
Finally, there is everyone's favourite topic, a throwback from the 60s and 70s - good old feminism. Here, there is a plethora of words to throw at anyone who doesn't subscribe to the basic tenets of feminism, which ultimately come down to trying to make people believe that women and men are equal in ALL respects, completely ignoring the fact that men and women were created with clear differences, and I'm not just talking penis vs. vagina here. Yes, I absolutely agree with employment equity when it comes to women and men. I absolutely agree with equal opportunity for education, jobs, career advancement, etc. But let's face it - any man or woman who is married can tell you, their wife or husband is very different from them. As a general rule, women tend to be more relational, enjoy talking and just being with others. Men prefer to be doing things with one another, all the while the conversational level is kept minimum, or at the very least, kept to business-like topics (ie. no heart-to-heart discussions based on feelings and emotions). There have been marriage counsellors like Emmerson Eggerichs, whose book Love and Respect is perhaps my most recommended relationship book of all time to anyone who is married or is dating. It clearly shows that while there are differences between men and women, these differences are not a master/slave type of rank difference, but rather complementary differences. However, the feminist agenda does not allow for such talk and it pushes that these differences be eliminated. But even if you look at a lesbian relationships (I don't know of too many, but I have talked with a lesbian lady at work and have met her "partner"), there is still clearly that "man/woman" role, as much as it will be argued otherwise. Of course, anyone who are argues for common sense traditional male-female roles is viewed a misogynist, sexist or worse.
These days, there are a lot of things which the socialists out there really want to push - if you disagree with them, you're labelled intolerant, which basically means you do not blindly subscribe to left-win socialist agenda. Given the fact that I can either go against my core belief system and personal convictions and be considered a champion of diversity, or to do what is unpopular and raise questions about things, only to be labelled "intolerant"...well, in that case all I have to say is that I'm intolerant...and damn proud of it.
What Is Sin?
Since I feel a bit in a theological mood today, I am going to discuss some theological topics. One that has always been one of my favourites to discuss is: what is sin?
It's very interesting, because if you ask any group of people, Christian or not, chances are they will define sin in terms of its tangible outcroppings, or its manifestations - they will say stuff like sin is lying, cheating, murdering, etc. The problem with this is that defining it by the symptoms is not entirely accurate. The other problem is that Hollywood and such has made so many movies in which they have not really consulted anyone with half a theological brain to find out whether what they are portraying is accurate. So people think sin is bad stuff that you do. That is not correct, according to the Bible.
In that vein, in framing my comments here, I do want to state that a lot of people view TV and movies and think that the Christian church = The Roman Catholic Church. As a result, they will see the church being a bunch of dos and don'ts, of ritualism and rules-based (I have some major issues with Roman Catholic theology - that will be another discussion for another time). If you look at how the early church was set up in the New Testament, as well as Jesus' teaching for his followers, you will see a different structure. True, some Protestant denominations are just as rote and ritualistic, but I know that many aren't, so I'd ask you to qualify how you define "Christian theology" and "Christian church". I'd go even as far as to say that, despite the fact that most Americans call themselves Christians, I think the number of born-again Christians who have accepted Jesus Christ as Saviour and following Him every day is considerably smaller. Anyway...
While sin is not defined per se (ie. you will never see Jesus say, "this is what sin means", in the context of the rest of Scripture, I propose that sin can essentially be seen as anything which people do which they put their own selfish desires first. Essentially, I would see it as going your way instead of what God would like (or at the very least, not seeking God's will). Now, I realize that I'm not speaking to a predominantly Christian audience here, so I'm sure I may get a cold reception, but this is how I see it, as per my understanding of the Bible, and I have seen consistency in how this plays out in real life.
Some will argue that the Christian sees the world as a horrible and bad place, and as a result, has this worldview of sin in order to buttress their bleak outlook on life. However, I would generally agree with this outlook - however, I would define horrible and bad in the context of sin - it's all through Scripture since the Fall, that humans have that separation from God due to their decision to go their own way. As a result, humanity, until its very end, will bear the consequences of sin. Some people have asked about why God allows suffering of people who never deserved it. I can't answer that question, but I would say that in some cases, it has to not do with their own sin, but other people's sin. Someone drinks too much, drives a car, hits my car and kills my wife and child. Did I deserve to lose my wife and child? I can't figure out why this happened, but I do realize that if I'm ever in such a situation, I'll just have to yield to the fact that actions have consequences and sometimes those consequences affect those beyond us. That is the nature of sin - it's never really in a vacuum.
I'm sure a follow-up question would be: are people inherently good or bad? Again, this answer will not make me popular, but I strongly believe and am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are inherently bad, even if they have the propensity and potential for good. This is consistent with my understanding of sin built-into people when they are born till they die. Here's a personal example I can share: when my son was born, he was born into a pretty loving household. We did not teach him any aggressive behaviour or to be selfish. Yet when he turns 1 or 2, what happens: he starts grabbing stuff from other kids, he starts wanting his own way, he starts pushing others that are in his way - in other words, he is very self-centered. How did he become like that? We never taught him that, nor did we model that for him. It is only by constant discipline and correction that he is able to either keep those selfish desires in check, etc. I've seen this with every single infant/toddler that I meet, regardless of who the parents are. People are generally selfish. And that is just not babies and toddlers.
The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus has overcome sin, and as a result, has bridged the gap between God and humanity. Unfortunately, many churches do not teach this central truth, but instead focus on a list of dos and don't, which is not only not taught by Jesus, but based on Scripture has been shown to be ineffective, since people are selfish by nature and will want to go their own way at some point, rather than yielding to a higher authority. This is no different than the Pharisees who accosted Jesus in his day, who basically were the same people who thought that faith was just "doing the right things" and "looking the right way", etc. That was a false notion of following God, and it was rebuked in Jesus' day by the Man Himself, and it should be rebuked today.
It's very interesting, because if you ask any group of people, Christian or not, chances are they will define sin in terms of its tangible outcroppings, or its manifestations - they will say stuff like sin is lying, cheating, murdering, etc. The problem with this is that defining it by the symptoms is not entirely accurate. The other problem is that Hollywood and such has made so many movies in which they have not really consulted anyone with half a theological brain to find out whether what they are portraying is accurate. So people think sin is bad stuff that you do. That is not correct, according to the Bible.
In that vein, in framing my comments here, I do want to state that a lot of people view TV and movies and think that the Christian church = The Roman Catholic Church. As a result, they will see the church being a bunch of dos and don'ts, of ritualism and rules-based (I have some major issues with Roman Catholic theology - that will be another discussion for another time). If you look at how the early church was set up in the New Testament, as well as Jesus' teaching for his followers, you will see a different structure. True, some Protestant denominations are just as rote and ritualistic, but I know that many aren't, so I'd ask you to qualify how you define "Christian theology" and "Christian church". I'd go even as far as to say that, despite the fact that most Americans call themselves Christians, I think the number of born-again Christians who have accepted Jesus Christ as Saviour and following Him every day is considerably smaller. Anyway...
While sin is not defined per se (ie. you will never see Jesus say, "this is what sin means", in the context of the rest of Scripture, I propose that sin can essentially be seen as anything which people do which they put their own selfish desires first. Essentially, I would see it as going your way instead of what God would like (or at the very least, not seeking God's will). Now, I realize that I'm not speaking to a predominantly Christian audience here, so I'm sure I may get a cold reception, but this is how I see it, as per my understanding of the Bible, and I have seen consistency in how this plays out in real life.
Some will argue that the Christian sees the world as a horrible and bad place, and as a result, has this worldview of sin in order to buttress their bleak outlook on life. However, I would generally agree with this outlook - however, I would define horrible and bad in the context of sin - it's all through Scripture since the Fall, that humans have that separation from God due to their decision to go their own way. As a result, humanity, until its very end, will bear the consequences of sin. Some people have asked about why God allows suffering of people who never deserved it. I can't answer that question, but I would say that in some cases, it has to not do with their own sin, but other people's sin. Someone drinks too much, drives a car, hits my car and kills my wife and child. Did I deserve to lose my wife and child? I can't figure out why this happened, but I do realize that if I'm ever in such a situation, I'll just have to yield to the fact that actions have consequences and sometimes those consequences affect those beyond us. That is the nature of sin - it's never really in a vacuum.
I'm sure a follow-up question would be: are people inherently good or bad? Again, this answer will not make me popular, but I strongly believe and am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are inherently bad, even if they have the propensity and potential for good. This is consistent with my understanding of sin built-into people when they are born till they die. Here's a personal example I can share: when my son was born, he was born into a pretty loving household. We did not teach him any aggressive behaviour or to be selfish. Yet when he turns 1 or 2, what happens: he starts grabbing stuff from other kids, he starts wanting his own way, he starts pushing others that are in his way - in other words, he is very self-centered. How did he become like that? We never taught him that, nor did we model that for him. It is only by constant discipline and correction that he is able to either keep those selfish desires in check, etc. I've seen this with every single infant/toddler that I meet, regardless of who the parents are. People are generally selfish. And that is just not babies and toddlers.
The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus has overcome sin, and as a result, has bridged the gap between God and humanity. Unfortunately, many churches do not teach this central truth, but instead focus on a list of dos and don't, which is not only not taught by Jesus, but based on Scripture has been shown to be ineffective, since people are selfish by nature and will want to go their own way at some point, rather than yielding to a higher authority. This is no different than the Pharisees who accosted Jesus in his day, who basically were the same people who thought that faith was just "doing the right things" and "looking the right way", etc. That was a false notion of following God, and it was rebuked in Jesus' day by the Man Himself, and it should be rebuked today.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Imagine...A World Without Unions...
There are only a handful of views that I have held my entire life. One of them is my inherent dislike for unions (in industry - I'm not talking about marriage here). I remember (and I bet my Mom and Dad do as well) when I was around six-years-old, I made a mock placard and wore it around our home and our townhouse complex indicating, "I am on strike". I was mocking some strikers that I saw while on a car ride, and found out later that they were grumbling about something (you want to bet me a week's salary - yours, not mine - that it had something, somehow to do with wages? Every strike has to do with money, at some point, despite what you are told otherwise.
Years ago, I was talking with a friend with whom I had lost touch after high school, but we reconnected at the office in which we both worked. In subsequent "catch-up" conversations, we talked about something that most guys talk about at some point in their relational or friendship existence: cars. Specifically, what we are driving these days. No, the conversation was not for some sort of social status exchange, but we were curious as to what our tastes were in vehicles. To my surprise, he drove a Japanese car and swore by them, but I could have sworn myself that when I knew him in high school, he was a fan of domestics (I could be wrong). We both were raised in a town that was more or less a stone's throw away from a city that had a MAJOR General Motors plant. Anyhow, he went on to say something that resonated with me - and this was just his opinion, but I think there is much truth in it. He said that over time, he has become convinced that imports, and Japanese cars in particular, are not only a better value for the dollar, but are far better made, thus ensuring future reliability and performance. The reason he believes this is because, in his view, none of the Japanese automakers are unionized, whereas General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford all have their employees functioning under unions.
I couldn't disagree with him. If you look at Consumer Reports, GM, Ford, and Chrysler cars as a whole are generally considered less reliable, not as well made, and do not hold their value as well as imports, particularly Japanese cars. Worksmanship issues and component failure and premature replacement of parts is generally understood to be the norm for domestic cars. My friend suggested that it has to do with the unions because, with employees who are protected under a union, they really don't have much incentive to put forth excellent quality or develop efficiencies. In the end, they don't really need to work as hard, since they have union protection and even if you slack off, don't pay as close attention to details, or don't push yourself to work stronger, faster, smarter - in the end everyone gets the same raise amount.
Am I making a broad sweep of the brush here? Of course I am. Am I saying everyone who is in a union, is lazy? Of course not. But what I am saying is that unions provide the vehicle (no pun intended) in which such conditions of apathy and slothfulness can take place.
I have a friend, with whom I used to work in my company. He left our company due to his seeing that his job would eventually be phased out due to him working on an account that was snatched up by another company, who decided to in-source their IT services. Anyhow, my friend ended up as a contractor working for a very large, hydro-electric company. While he was a contractor, he was forced to do all the work? Why? Because the union guys would come in very late for work, spend some time drinking coffee, and then would all take off for a couple of hours for a Costco shopping trip - all on company time. I said to my friend whether he has a problem with this type of work mentality - his response surprised me - he said, "I want to be one of those guys!" Just a few weeks ago, I found out that he took a career step backwards, but as a result he is no longer a contractor and has been offered full time employment and become part of the workers' union there. It's interesting, because I had applied for a position at that company years ago (without knowing that even the IT staff were unionized), and they were ready to hire me, except for for the fact that shortly before they told me they were interested in me, the whole union went on strike (which eventually lasted for around three months). Had I taken that job earlier, I would have spent the first three months of my working career there on the picket line, but of course I would have never allowed it to get that far, and would have, by then, moved my sorry ass out of there.
It seems like everywhere there is a union, I hear these stories. My brother-in-law, who has a tremendously good work ethic, told me about his experience years ago in Windsor, when he spent summers working in a factory environment as a contractor. I'm not sure what they were manufacturing, but he was able to produce a certain amount of products on the assembly line, which was either triple or quadruple the production of the unionized workers. The unionized workers became irritated with him and thought he was showing them up. They wanted him to sit with them all day and play cards, but he was there to work, and decided to not participate. He told me that as a general rule, these union guys frown on those whose work production and efficiency makes them look bad, and they may even go as far as vandalizing your car or harrassing you for working harder and smarter than they were (if they were working at all). That is pretty sad.
I'm sure you have come across a union that has inconvenienced your life somewhere. Whether it was a general strike in Toronto, which included garbage collectors (which as a result, left thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of bags of garbage rotting on curbs and the street many years ago, or a strike by TTC (Toronto public transit) workers who amongst other things, wanted better working conditions or a wage increase (surprise surprise) even though the average bus driver makes freaking $55,000 a year, and as a result of the strike, commuters were left scrambling to find other means to get to work. Or teachers' strikes over "unfair working conditions", "too much workload" and too big class sizes (pretty bold for the union to make these demands - the public was not terribly sympathetic and rightfully so), which resulted in students being unable to go to school to learn or take exams, etc. Or nurses doing on strike, causing major issues with health care. Civil servants going on strike, delaying the processing of beneifts and pension cheques and what not. I am not sure whether there have been any strikes that have really brought the general public to the side of the strikers.
Unions used to have their place and were effective at a time where physical working conditions were horrible, where employees were run roughshod by management, and where there were gross inequities between pay amongst employees. These days, there are very few private companies who engage in such behaviour. Aside from it being culturally repugnant, such actions are frowned upon by most companies, who use external independent auditors to ensure that they are meeting and / or exceeding government-set standards for employement. Unlike years ago, there are not a plethora of agencies and companies who are in the business of ensuring companies are run ethically and professionally. Employment equity laws are galaxies beyond what they used to be (if they even existed at all). All of this really eliminates the need for a union whose purpose is questionable these day. I would argue that the presence of a union would entice people to apathy and general acceptance of the status quo, without finding ways to make things better, even if that means letting people go as a result. Make-work roles would not need to be constructed, and companies and governments can ensure that their money or taxpayer money is well spent, rather than farting it on employing a bunch of people who generally don't give a rat's ass about the job, but rather try to milk their job for all its worth.
I hope before I pass, I will be able to see the elimination of the traditional union, with all its socialist inefficiencies, protection of poorly performing workers, and its constant desire to squeeze the company or the government for as much as they can take, without making tough decisions that positively impact the bottom line.
EDIT on 9/26/2007: Since I wrote this entry, I read that GM had a national strike the last couple of days. I had no idea as I was not really following the news much. A U.S. union had some concerns about pension funds as well as job security (Like, what the hell? There's no job security in the private sector and there certainly should not be any in a union - I actually don't believe in guaranteed job security - it's just a formula to entice people to sit on their ass and not work to 100% efficiency. In today's marketplace of competitiveness and the need to outdo everyone else, only the cream of the crop should be employed by companies - as my Dad would say, get rid of the dead wood. Given the fact that GM, Chrysler and Ford are behind in sales and customer satisfaction compared to Japanese and European car makers, they need to do some serious internal restructuring to be able to compete with their foreign counterparts. Having no guaranteed job security would make people nervous, yes, but it would also force people to aspire to work better, smarter, and more efficiently, producing a better product). Anyhow, along with the tentative deal comes a $3000.00 signing bonus (there's that money again). Sheesh... The sad thing is, the decision of a U.S. union forced the closure of Canadian plants, putting tens of thousands of people out of work for the past couple of days. I'm pretty sure most of these folks need their job and had no say in the strike. But that's the problem with being part of a union.
Years ago, I was talking with a friend with whom I had lost touch after high school, but we reconnected at the office in which we both worked. In subsequent "catch-up" conversations, we talked about something that most guys talk about at some point in their relational or friendship existence: cars. Specifically, what we are driving these days. No, the conversation was not for some sort of social status exchange, but we were curious as to what our tastes were in vehicles. To my surprise, he drove a Japanese car and swore by them, but I could have sworn myself that when I knew him in high school, he was a fan of domestics (I could be wrong). We both were raised in a town that was more or less a stone's throw away from a city that had a MAJOR General Motors plant. Anyhow, he went on to say something that resonated with me - and this was just his opinion, but I think there is much truth in it. He said that over time, he has become convinced that imports, and Japanese cars in particular, are not only a better value for the dollar, but are far better made, thus ensuring future reliability and performance. The reason he believes this is because, in his view, none of the Japanese automakers are unionized, whereas General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford all have their employees functioning under unions.
I couldn't disagree with him. If you look at Consumer Reports, GM, Ford, and Chrysler cars as a whole are generally considered less reliable, not as well made, and do not hold their value as well as imports, particularly Japanese cars. Worksmanship issues and component failure and premature replacement of parts is generally understood to be the norm for domestic cars. My friend suggested that it has to do with the unions because, with employees who are protected under a union, they really don't have much incentive to put forth excellent quality or develop efficiencies. In the end, they don't really need to work as hard, since they have union protection and even if you slack off, don't pay as close attention to details, or don't push yourself to work stronger, faster, smarter - in the end everyone gets the same raise amount.
Am I making a broad sweep of the brush here? Of course I am. Am I saying everyone who is in a union, is lazy? Of course not. But what I am saying is that unions provide the vehicle (no pun intended) in which such conditions of apathy and slothfulness can take place.
I have a friend, with whom I used to work in my company. He left our company due to his seeing that his job would eventually be phased out due to him working on an account that was snatched up by another company, who decided to in-source their IT services. Anyhow, my friend ended up as a contractor working for a very large, hydro-electric company. While he was a contractor, he was forced to do all the work? Why? Because the union guys would come in very late for work, spend some time drinking coffee, and then would all take off for a couple of hours for a Costco shopping trip - all on company time. I said to my friend whether he has a problem with this type of work mentality - his response surprised me - he said, "I want to be one of those guys!" Just a few weeks ago, I found out that he took a career step backwards, but as a result he is no longer a contractor and has been offered full time employment and become part of the workers' union there. It's interesting, because I had applied for a position at that company years ago (without knowing that even the IT staff were unionized), and they were ready to hire me, except for for the fact that shortly before they told me they were interested in me, the whole union went on strike (which eventually lasted for around three months). Had I taken that job earlier, I would have spent the first three months of my working career there on the picket line, but of course I would have never allowed it to get that far, and would have, by then, moved my sorry ass out of there.
It seems like everywhere there is a union, I hear these stories. My brother-in-law, who has a tremendously good work ethic, told me about his experience years ago in Windsor, when he spent summers working in a factory environment as a contractor. I'm not sure what they were manufacturing, but he was able to produce a certain amount of products on the assembly line, which was either triple or quadruple the production of the unionized workers. The unionized workers became irritated with him and thought he was showing them up. They wanted him to sit with them all day and play cards, but he was there to work, and decided to not participate. He told me that as a general rule, these union guys frown on those whose work production and efficiency makes them look bad, and they may even go as far as vandalizing your car or harrassing you for working harder and smarter than they were (if they were working at all). That is pretty sad.
I'm sure you have come across a union that has inconvenienced your life somewhere. Whether it was a general strike in Toronto, which included garbage collectors (which as a result, left thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of bags of garbage rotting on curbs and the street many years ago, or a strike by TTC (Toronto public transit) workers who amongst other things, wanted better working conditions or a wage increase (surprise surprise) even though the average bus driver makes freaking $55,000 a year, and as a result of the strike, commuters were left scrambling to find other means to get to work. Or teachers' strikes over "unfair working conditions", "too much workload" and too big class sizes (pretty bold for the union to make these demands - the public was not terribly sympathetic and rightfully so), which resulted in students being unable to go to school to learn or take exams, etc. Or nurses doing on strike, causing major issues with health care. Civil servants going on strike, delaying the processing of beneifts and pension cheques and what not. I am not sure whether there have been any strikes that have really brought the general public to the side of the strikers.
Unions used to have their place and were effective at a time where physical working conditions were horrible, where employees were run roughshod by management, and where there were gross inequities between pay amongst employees. These days, there are very few private companies who engage in such behaviour. Aside from it being culturally repugnant, such actions are frowned upon by most companies, who use external independent auditors to ensure that they are meeting and / or exceeding government-set standards for employement. Unlike years ago, there are not a plethora of agencies and companies who are in the business of ensuring companies are run ethically and professionally. Employment equity laws are galaxies beyond what they used to be (if they even existed at all). All of this really eliminates the need for a union whose purpose is questionable these day. I would argue that the presence of a union would entice people to apathy and general acceptance of the status quo, without finding ways to make things better, even if that means letting people go as a result. Make-work roles would not need to be constructed, and companies and governments can ensure that their money or taxpayer money is well spent, rather than farting it on employing a bunch of people who generally don't give a rat's ass about the job, but rather try to milk their job for all its worth.
I hope before I pass, I will be able to see the elimination of the traditional union, with all its socialist inefficiencies, protection of poorly performing workers, and its constant desire to squeeze the company or the government for as much as they can take, without making tough decisions that positively impact the bottom line.
EDIT on 9/26/2007: Since I wrote this entry, I read that GM had a national strike the last couple of days. I had no idea as I was not really following the news much. A U.S. union had some concerns about pension funds as well as job security (Like, what the hell? There's no job security in the private sector and there certainly should not be any in a union - I actually don't believe in guaranteed job security - it's just a formula to entice people to sit on their ass and not work to 100% efficiency. In today's marketplace of competitiveness and the need to outdo everyone else, only the cream of the crop should be employed by companies - as my Dad would say, get rid of the dead wood. Given the fact that GM, Chrysler and Ford are behind in sales and customer satisfaction compared to Japanese and European car makers, they need to do some serious internal restructuring to be able to compete with their foreign counterparts. Having no guaranteed job security would make people nervous, yes, but it would also force people to aspire to work better, smarter, and more efficiently, producing a better product). Anyhow, along with the tentative deal comes a $3000.00 signing bonus (there's that money again). Sheesh... The sad thing is, the decision of a U.S. union forced the closure of Canadian plants, putting tens of thousands of people out of work for the past couple of days. I'm pretty sure most of these folks need their job and had no say in the strike. But that's the problem with being part of a union.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
The 2007 Ontario Electorate: Lemmings Personnified
What else can I call many of these apathetic voters who, despite a long history of broken promises, fiscal mismanagement, and...well, lies to the public by Dalton McGuinty and the governing provincial Liberals, are planning to vote him back into power in a few weeks time (at least according to recent polls). Do people care about good leadership anymore? Does a person's word count for much anymore? OK, so you may think all politicians are slimy, and I am not going to vigorously debate you on this point, but surely common sense must prevail and you'd have to objectively look at McGuinty's leadership (or lack thereof) record? It is no secret to anyone that I am going to be voting for John Tory and the Progressive Conservatives, but I will be so bold as to say that even the NDP leader, Howard Hampton, a really left-leaning uber-liberal, with whom I disagree on most issues, would be a far suitable Premier than Mr. McGuinty. I've watched Hampton for more than a decade now on debates and interviews, and at the very least, he has sincere passion and truly believes in his principles, despite what others say. That is probably why he has been NDP leader so long, because he will stick to his message and his socialist ideals, and not stoop to vote buying right before an election. Of course, I hope that the NDP does not take power, but I don't think there's ever a chance of that, given the consistently third place ratings of the party in elections. Still, my point stands that ANY of the other leaders (even fringe Green Party candidate Frank De Jong) would be a better Premier than McGuinty.
Due to an event at my son's school (his first school open house since he has been a student - all of two weeks thus far), I was unable to watch the leaders' debate live; however, due to the wonders of modern day technology, I was able to view it in its entirety via video streaming on the internet (I don't have cable, so there was no option to record it on TV) thanks to the good ol' CBC. While it is not my intention to go over the debate, I want to touch on a couple of points, and then expand it to my editorial comments.
Well, what can I say? No surprise that McGuinty was on the attack throughout the debate. Anyone who thinks that McGuinty won the debate was not watching very carefully. McGuinty dodged questions by his usual strategy of providing an answer to a question that not even remotely addresses the topic in the original question. The one point which Tory and Hampton sliced him up quite nicely, was on the issue of is countless broken promises, not the least of which was his bring forth of the health tax, the biggest increase in Ontario's history, when during the last election, he said he wouldn't. Now, in subsequent ads and in print and radio responses and even on this debate, he said he realized after he got into power that he faced a tough choice as he inherited an almost six billion dollar deficit from the previous Conservative government and Mike Harris. However, it is evident that he knew about this months before he took power, since there are reports that were provided to him, even during the election campaign of 2003. So when he made that promise not to raise taxes, he knew that he would be dealing with a deficit that would require money from somewhere.
McGuinty also promised more doctors/nurses available and shorter wait times at the hospital four years ago. Well, I can tell you as a guy who has visited the emergency room multiple times before 2003, and many times after 2003 (due to my having a son now, who gets sick once in a while), the emergency room waits are markedly worse than before. I thought it was just me, so I asked friends and colleagues (a number of which are not conservatives like me) about their experience, and they also indicate that emergency room waits have increased. Also, have you tried to find a family doctor lately? It's pretty difficult. Tory proposes a controversial pay-per-use private clinic, and I support him on such initiatives. True, universal health care is a great thing, and I'm glad that we have it, unlike the U.S. However, with it being a public system, we should expect long waits (it's like free internet - you can't expect the highest quality). Just like anything else, I don't see why it can't be that people who can afford to get faster or better service, simply pays for it. Example: you will see a certain clientele eat at McDonald's, and you will see another certain clientele eat at fancy restaurants. No one is complaining about the disparity between the rich and the poor (or the wealthy and the middle class). Some people can afford to buy Porsche 911s, others put all their life savings toward a 1986 Hyndai Pony. That's just the way it is. Some people can afford to have others cook and clean and tend to their gardens; others can't even afford the cost of potting a simple plant. So if people who have the cash or the means to pay for faster service for their health care needs, why are people so up-in-arms over this? I would say it is better this way, as it will alleviate some of the congestion in the emergency rooms. Some will argue that such private clinics and hospitals will pull talented doctors away, but again, is this so unusual? Within all professions there are value/economy priced companies, and then there are the pay-through-your-nose priced companies. People should have a choice as to how to spend the money that they have or don't have. I'm all for a privatized health care system that works alongside a public universal system.
For education, McGuinty's big feather-in-the-cap (according to him) is that there have been no teacher's strikes for four years. So what? You have a tax-and-spend liberal like McGuinty who will appease most special interest groups, and of course you're not going to get any strikes. Many people in Ontario (especially teachers and nurses) did not like Mike Harris, but at the very least, he was one of those guys who did what he said he would do. He ended up pissing off a lot of people in the process, but if you are talking about making hard decisions to cut
spending and expenses in order to balance the books, that's what he had to do (remember, Harris inherited a massive deficit from the previous NDP - ultra liberal - tax and spend government). During McGuinty's time, class sizes have actually increased and there are more split classes than there were in Harris' time - this can all be independently verified. McGuinty also says he supports a full-fledged public school system, yet he is a staunch supporter of publicly funded Catholic schools (which I am 100% dead-set against) and I believe his own kids went to publicly funded Catholic schools. John Tory supports the public school system too, but as a guy who has considerably more common sense, he has called on McGuinty to either scrap public funding for Catholic schools, or publicly fund ALL faith-based religious schools, not just Catholic ones. From an equal treatment of citizens perspective, this makes lots of sense. But for whatever reason, McGuinty will continue to rally behind a public school system that also makes provision for Catholics for funding, but no one else (of course, this is because he is a Roman Catholic - whatever happened to separation of church and state???). I've never understood, even as a kid, why the province funds Catholic schools, so the sooner that this can go away, the better. I'm with John Tory on this one!
McGuinty also broke promises to shut down coal-fire plants, as well as provide assistance and support for autistic children (he ended up going to court to fight them after he broke his promise to them - once again, at election time- that he would provide support for them). McGuinty, as a feel good measure, attempted to put together a committee (ugh!) to look into support and funding for autistic children, in particular, but last I checked, no report was forthcoming.
John Tory, in his campaign (the website, by the way is http://www.ontariopc.com), as well as on the debate, has consistently focused on the sad fact that Ontario is now lagging badly in many aspects of job creation, economic growth and being viewed as a leader, as compared to other provinces. Much of this can be attributed to McGuinty, as Ontario was not in this position four years ago. As much as I disagree with McGuinty, at least he is not doing the ultimate killer for the economy, which is to be Hampton's single focus: raising the minimum wage. I am not an economist, but you don't need to be one to get at least a sense of why that would be not very good, given the shape of today's economy.
He did Toronto a huge disservice by telling its mayor, David Miller, that he had no money to give the city, and as a result, Toronto had to start cutting services, including public transit, libraries and pools and such (this, of course, was not entirely the province's fault, since Miller has also done a poor job of managing Toronto's books, and has made a point of ridiculous spending patterns, sending councillors, on the public dime, to lavish retreats and training facilities - but this is not about Miller, so I'll stoop here). However, JUST BEFORE AN ELECTION, McGuinty magically announces that he has a 1.2 BILLION dollar surplus for the 2006 year alone, and he will be doing some spending with it. Of course, he pulled the wool over Miller's eyes, but that's another story. He then started to disperse some money, right before the election to several organizations - apparently, these are "gifts" with no strings attached. One million dollars went to some cricket club (McGuinty claims there were no political party attachments here, but if you look at this demographically, cricket is enjoyed by East Indians and Pakistanis and others from that region, and it can be demonstrated that the East Indian/Pakistani community are heavy liberal supporters (don't believe me - look at how heavy-Indian areas like Brampton, and certain parts of British Columbia vote).
McGuinty also says he supports public transit, but he said that last time as well (and right before an election). Interestingly, McGuinty's current campaign platform (if you haven't read it, you can get it on the http://www.onterioliberal.ca website) does have provision for transit funding, but it mentions Toronto exclusively, even though there are transit systems in other centres such as London and Ottawa. McGuinty's plan for funding transit goes up to 2040 before it's actually fully paid for. Sounds like some short term gain (votes) in exchange for some long-term pain (deficit). McGuinty claims that the gas tax that he introduced (another damn tax that consumers have to pay) was purported set up in order to fund public transit. In truth, the gas tax was collected and put in a general revenue bucket, only a fraction of which was used for public transit. So McGuinty isn't really telling the whole truth here - yes, he's collecting the gas tax, but are the proceeds of this tax being used specifically to fund public transit and improve roads? I've noticed the quality of many roads in Ontario to be utterly crap in the past couple of years.
Crime and punishment - here's where McGuinty's true colours of being an observer, not a leader, really stand out. Remember the Belleville Indian blockade earlier this year? The provincial government did nothing about it. In truth McGuinty does not want to look like a non-liberal, by actually enforcing laws to protect citizens. He also doesn't want to be viewed as being unsympathetic to the Indian population, but instead, he let it get out of a hand with the rogue leader of the protestors group looking more like a leader than the Premier of Ontario. Speaking of crime, have you looked at crime statistics lately? At least in Toronto, where crime seems to have risen and has only been kept in check somewhat with the excellent work that past police chief Julian Fantino and current chief Bill Blair have done? I find it amazing to read of so many crimes being committed by those who are either on bail or have had previous criminal records or were on probation. The penalties for those who skip bail are more like a slap on the wrist. And as Tory has stated, McGuinty keeps records on beans harvested and fishing licenses issues, but has no record on how many commit crimes while on bail (the police have this info though), how many deals with criminals are done with the government, etc.
McGuinty loves to blame Mike Harris for any of his shortcomings, but even Howard Hampton and a number of socialist commentators have remarked, he has had four years to do so something about it. What has he done in the past four years?
I remember watching McGuinty when he squared off against Mike Harris and Howard Hampton back in 1999 on a televison debate, but also on the campaign trail. He was very wooden, and just like he is today, has a really annoying way of presenting himself, using dramatic pauses when they are not needed, slowing his speech to try to emphasize points, and looking serious in order to gain him some credibility. Obviously, people saw through all that, and saw that he had no personality and could barely defend his position. In 2003, McGuinty, with an obviously improved team of speech and body language coaches used a bit more humour, etc. This is good to the electorate, but the problem was, he basically wasn't really being himself. Those who watched him in 1999 and before that would know that he's a more introverted, introspective type of person. My brother, whose friend works in the Liberal Party, has told him that McGuinty is actually a pretty nice guy, but he's nothing like his in on TV, where he has to project some sort of politician personality. In order to win votes, he changed his personality like a Dr. Jeckyll / Mr. Hyde type of deal. He's done that with breaking promises. He's done that with funding and giving in to special interest groups. Unlike Tory and Hampton, McGuinty does not possess a genuine passion in his platform, and does not seem sincere when he talks.
He is now proposing around 300 new promises this election campaign. Do you really think this guy deserves a second chance?
Due to an event at my son's school (his first school open house since he has been a student - all of two weeks thus far), I was unable to watch the leaders' debate live; however, due to the wonders of modern day technology, I was able to view it in its entirety via video streaming on the internet (I don't have cable, so there was no option to record it on TV) thanks to the good ol' CBC. While it is not my intention to go over the debate, I want to touch on a couple of points, and then expand it to my editorial comments.
Well, what can I say? No surprise that McGuinty was on the attack throughout the debate. Anyone who thinks that McGuinty won the debate was not watching very carefully. McGuinty dodged questions by his usual strategy of providing an answer to a question that not even remotely addresses the topic in the original question. The one point which Tory and Hampton sliced him up quite nicely, was on the issue of is countless broken promises, not the least of which was his bring forth of the health tax, the biggest increase in Ontario's history, when during the last election, he said he wouldn't. Now, in subsequent ads and in print and radio responses and even on this debate, he said he realized after he got into power that he faced a tough choice as he inherited an almost six billion dollar deficit from the previous Conservative government and Mike Harris. However, it is evident that he knew about this months before he took power, since there are reports that were provided to him, even during the election campaign of 2003. So when he made that promise not to raise taxes, he knew that he would be dealing with a deficit that would require money from somewhere.
McGuinty also promised more doctors/nurses available and shorter wait times at the hospital four years ago. Well, I can tell you as a guy who has visited the emergency room multiple times before 2003, and many times after 2003 (due to my having a son now, who gets sick once in a while), the emergency room waits are markedly worse than before. I thought it was just me, so I asked friends and colleagues (a number of which are not conservatives like me) about their experience, and they also indicate that emergency room waits have increased. Also, have you tried to find a family doctor lately? It's pretty difficult. Tory proposes a controversial pay-per-use private clinic, and I support him on such initiatives. True, universal health care is a great thing, and I'm glad that we have it, unlike the U.S. However, with it being a public system, we should expect long waits (it's like free internet - you can't expect the highest quality). Just like anything else, I don't see why it can't be that people who can afford to get faster or better service, simply pays for it. Example: you will see a certain clientele eat at McDonald's, and you will see another certain clientele eat at fancy restaurants. No one is complaining about the disparity between the rich and the poor (or the wealthy and the middle class). Some people can afford to buy Porsche 911s, others put all their life savings toward a 1986 Hyndai Pony. That's just the way it is. Some people can afford to have others cook and clean and tend to their gardens; others can't even afford the cost of potting a simple plant. So if people who have the cash or the means to pay for faster service for their health care needs, why are people so up-in-arms over this? I would say it is better this way, as it will alleviate some of the congestion in the emergency rooms. Some will argue that such private clinics and hospitals will pull talented doctors away, but again, is this so unusual? Within all professions there are value/economy priced companies, and then there are the pay-through-your-nose priced companies. People should have a choice as to how to spend the money that they have or don't have. I'm all for a privatized health care system that works alongside a public universal system.
For education, McGuinty's big feather-in-the-cap (according to him) is that there have been no teacher's strikes for four years. So what? You have a tax-and-spend liberal like McGuinty who will appease most special interest groups, and of course you're not going to get any strikes. Many people in Ontario (especially teachers and nurses) did not like Mike Harris, but at the very least, he was one of those guys who did what he said he would do. He ended up pissing off a lot of people in the process, but if you are talking about making hard decisions to cut
spending and expenses in order to balance the books, that's what he had to do (remember, Harris inherited a massive deficit from the previous NDP - ultra liberal - tax and spend government). During McGuinty's time, class sizes have actually increased and there are more split classes than there were in Harris' time - this can all be independently verified. McGuinty also says he supports a full-fledged public school system, yet he is a staunch supporter of publicly funded Catholic schools (which I am 100% dead-set against) and I believe his own kids went to publicly funded Catholic schools. John Tory supports the public school system too, but as a guy who has considerably more common sense, he has called on McGuinty to either scrap public funding for Catholic schools, or publicly fund ALL faith-based religious schools, not just Catholic ones. From an equal treatment of citizens perspective, this makes lots of sense. But for whatever reason, McGuinty will continue to rally behind a public school system that also makes provision for Catholics for funding, but no one else (of course, this is because he is a Roman Catholic - whatever happened to separation of church and state???). I've never understood, even as a kid, why the province funds Catholic schools, so the sooner that this can go away, the better. I'm with John Tory on this one!
McGuinty also broke promises to shut down coal-fire plants, as well as provide assistance and support for autistic children (he ended up going to court to fight them after he broke his promise to them - once again, at election time- that he would provide support for them). McGuinty, as a feel good measure, attempted to put together a committee (ugh!) to look into support and funding for autistic children, in particular, but last I checked, no report was forthcoming.
John Tory, in his campaign (the website, by the way is http://www.ontariopc.com), as well as on the debate, has consistently focused on the sad fact that Ontario is now lagging badly in many aspects of job creation, economic growth and being viewed as a leader, as compared to other provinces. Much of this can be attributed to McGuinty, as Ontario was not in this position four years ago. As much as I disagree with McGuinty, at least he is not doing the ultimate killer for the economy, which is to be Hampton's single focus: raising the minimum wage. I am not an economist, but you don't need to be one to get at least a sense of why that would be not very good, given the shape of today's economy.
He did Toronto a huge disservice by telling its mayor, David Miller, that he had no money to give the city, and as a result, Toronto had to start cutting services, including public transit, libraries and pools and such (this, of course, was not entirely the province's fault, since Miller has also done a poor job of managing Toronto's books, and has made a point of ridiculous spending patterns, sending councillors, on the public dime, to lavish retreats and training facilities - but this is not about Miller, so I'll stoop here). However, JUST BEFORE AN ELECTION, McGuinty magically announces that he has a 1.2 BILLION dollar surplus for the 2006 year alone, and he will be doing some spending with it. Of course, he pulled the wool over Miller's eyes, but that's another story. He then started to disperse some money, right before the election to several organizations - apparently, these are "gifts" with no strings attached. One million dollars went to some cricket club (McGuinty claims there were no political party attachments here, but if you look at this demographically, cricket is enjoyed by East Indians and Pakistanis and others from that region, and it can be demonstrated that the East Indian/Pakistani community are heavy liberal supporters (don't believe me - look at how heavy-Indian areas like Brampton, and certain parts of British Columbia vote).
McGuinty also says he supports public transit, but he said that last time as well (and right before an election). Interestingly, McGuinty's current campaign platform (if you haven't read it, you can get it on the http://www.onterioliberal.ca website) does have provision for transit funding, but it mentions Toronto exclusively, even though there are transit systems in other centres such as London and Ottawa. McGuinty's plan for funding transit goes up to 2040 before it's actually fully paid for. Sounds like some short term gain (votes) in exchange for some long-term pain (deficit). McGuinty claims that the gas tax that he introduced (another damn tax that consumers have to pay) was purported set up in order to fund public transit. In truth, the gas tax was collected and put in a general revenue bucket, only a fraction of which was used for public transit. So McGuinty isn't really telling the whole truth here - yes, he's collecting the gas tax, but are the proceeds of this tax being used specifically to fund public transit and improve roads? I've noticed the quality of many roads in Ontario to be utterly crap in the past couple of years.
Crime and punishment - here's where McGuinty's true colours of being an observer, not a leader, really stand out. Remember the Belleville Indian blockade earlier this year? The provincial government did nothing about it. In truth McGuinty does not want to look like a non-liberal, by actually enforcing laws to protect citizens. He also doesn't want to be viewed as being unsympathetic to the Indian population, but instead, he let it get out of a hand with the rogue leader of the protestors group looking more like a leader than the Premier of Ontario. Speaking of crime, have you looked at crime statistics lately? At least in Toronto, where crime seems to have risen and has only been kept in check somewhat with the excellent work that past police chief Julian Fantino and current chief Bill Blair have done? I find it amazing to read of so many crimes being committed by those who are either on bail or have had previous criminal records or were on probation. The penalties for those who skip bail are more like a slap on the wrist. And as Tory has stated, McGuinty keeps records on beans harvested and fishing licenses issues, but has no record on how many commit crimes while on bail (the police have this info though), how many deals with criminals are done with the government, etc.
McGuinty loves to blame Mike Harris for any of his shortcomings, but even Howard Hampton and a number of socialist commentators have remarked, he has had four years to do so something about it. What has he done in the past four years?
I remember watching McGuinty when he squared off against Mike Harris and Howard Hampton back in 1999 on a televison debate, but also on the campaign trail. He was very wooden, and just like he is today, has a really annoying way of presenting himself, using dramatic pauses when they are not needed, slowing his speech to try to emphasize points, and looking serious in order to gain him some credibility. Obviously, people saw through all that, and saw that he had no personality and could barely defend his position. In 2003, McGuinty, with an obviously improved team of speech and body language coaches used a bit more humour, etc. This is good to the electorate, but the problem was, he basically wasn't really being himself. Those who watched him in 1999 and before that would know that he's a more introverted, introspective type of person. My brother, whose friend works in the Liberal Party, has told him that McGuinty is actually a pretty nice guy, but he's nothing like his in on TV, where he has to project some sort of politician personality. In order to win votes, he changed his personality like a Dr. Jeckyll / Mr. Hyde type of deal. He's done that with breaking promises. He's done that with funding and giving in to special interest groups. Unlike Tory and Hampton, McGuinty does not possess a genuine passion in his platform, and does not seem sincere when he talks.
He is now proposing around 300 new promises this election campaign. Do you really think this guy deserves a second chance?
Friday, September 21, 2007
Transformers The Movie (2007) - My Review
As a lifelong Transformers collector, fan, and enthusiast (my personal collection of Transformers is probably worth between $12,000 - $17,000), I would be remiss if I did not take the time to watch the new iteration of the movie, released this past July, in the theatre, while it was playing. I heard good things about the movie, and while it has been universally indicated by reviewers and people I know, that the movie, unlike its predecessor was not geared towards kids, I had a sense that perhaps the film makers really botched up the new version of the movie, in order to make it appeal to today's "I want to see lots of violence, ample amounts of nudity, and dazzling special effects" (not necessarily in that order) crowd. The consensus was that it was a darker movie. However, like anything else, I thought I would make up my mind after I went in and saw the film.
Since the movie's been out for a few months now, only several theatres were still playing it. One of my buddies had indicated he saw it, and that if I wanted to see it, he'd go with me. I knew of another friend who had wanted to see it, but never had time, and so I invited him, and he was able to join us with his wife and we all went to see the movie exactly two weeks ago today.
Some context before I proceed with offering up my review on the movie. I have watched the 1985/86 version of the Transformers movie ad nauseum. To me, I can remember most lines, all of the music (the soundtrack CD is still in my car). My son has proven to me that he is biologically mine, by taking up, on his own volition, a rabid fascination and keen interest in all things Transformers. I have purchased some recent versions of the figures for him, and he has requested to watch the original Transformers movie more times than I can count. As a result, I have had some recent re-introduction of the Transformers movie back from 1986. While it was a good movie, several things came to mind: 1) the music is pretty dated with Stan Bush arena rock permeating throughout the film, 2) it ended with what appears to be a scene begging for a sequel, since Unicron's head was floating into outer space and escaped the rest of him exploding, 3) the death of several high-profile Transformers has always disturbed me (and the role of Ultra Magnus was not terribly clear), and 4) there were several plot gaps in the movie that begged for a future movie that would connect the dots. So I went into the 2007 edition expecting a radically different movie, but hoping that there would be some tie in with the original.
I was right on both counts.
By the way, for those who have not seen the movie yet, I'll be sure to not put in any spoilers here (at least, not deliberately).
The 2007 movie, unlike the original, is not a cartoon. The robots and the battles were obviously all special effects and animation. Also inserted into the movie were real humans played by real actors. The music, overall, was very well chosen, having a mixture of old 80s music when appropriate (to conjure up the real-life environment for those who wish to go back to their childhood on memory lane), as well as up-to-date alternative rock (which I absolutely love). The movie took on a more serious tone, and is likely geared towards more of a teenage audience, due to some of the themes present. And as anticipated, it was a darker movie, both substance-wise as well as colour wise. Gone are the old Transformers team where many of the autobots were colourful and very fictitious looking. The newer edition of the Transformers features robots that have very intricate and fine detail. Some are even pretty scary looking. In the previous movie, even a non-fan would be able to quickly discern who was an Autobot and who was a Decepticon. In this rendition, the asthetic lines are far more blurred. Had the audio been turned off during the movie, I would have accidentally mistaken several Autobots to be bad guys.
Some good stuff: I like the fact that they brought back Optimus Prime, and the original guy who played his voice - that was a nice touch. There were some very un-Optimus lines that were a bit cheesy, such as when he said "the world wide web", but they still kept his leadership demeanour and tone. By the way, Optimus was the only one who was brought back as more or less the same vehicle. Bumblebee was brought back as well, but he is no longer a VW Beetle. Similarly, while Starscream was a jet, he was a much different looking jet and transformed as such. Megatron was something else altogether, as was Ratchet (though his function was similar). I didn't mind the changes/updating of these characters - the rendering of the robots and how they transformed was excellent, and more than made up for me having to adjust to matching up the names with the new faces.
The storyline, as unbelieveable and at times, silly, as it was, was pretty easy to understand. It didn't bring up the same "huh" questions as the original cartoon movie did. This is good that they kept the plot fairly simple, since I would presume people don't go to see Transformers in order to engage in a philosophical storyline or glean great spiritual truths, though there were enough cheesy cliches in the movie to establish your own worldview and statement of faith.
The battle scenes were, without a doubt, spectacular. I'd say that the movie lived up to the hype based on the battle scenes alone. The robots Transformed more realistically this time around, whereas in the old movie, you start to wonder "when they transformed from vehicle to robot, what happened to this part? Coupled with the excellent music that was married with the fight and action scenes, action buffs will get more than their fill of testosterone. Some people have told me that they hated the fact that the Transformers now fight with turret-type guns, gattling-type guns, and machine guns/rocket launchers, IED-looking devices, etc., rather than the traditional laser gun. I personally welcome the new weaponry. It is more sophisticated and shows the evolution of military technology. I would have been disappointed if they all just shot laser guns.
One positive aspect that I haven't heard too many people mention is subtle, but I think that it was intentional and worth mentioning. Everyone knows that North American cars have been dealt a serious blow by the Japanese and German car industry (and with good reason - just check out Consumer Reports on domestic vehicle ratings). I personally am not into domestic cars, and I myself drive a Japanese car. Regardless, I thought it was great (and refreshing) to feature so many domestic (North American) cars in a positive light, making them look cool in the movie. Say what you will about GM, but you have to admit, the Solstice looks really nice. I've never been a fan of muscle cars, but I found that they did a good job of showcasing the Mustang in the movie. Several scenes seem right out of the Fast and Furious movies (which I love) and it worked well to show off the robot in vehicle form (something that wasn't really focussed on with the G1 Transformer set).
To segue between the positive elements of the movie and some of the aspects I didn't like, I'll touch on an area that some may gloss over, but I think is worth nothing. Now, I have to be somewhat objective here. I can see both sides of the coin in that the presence of Megan Fox was both good and bad for the movie. Women's rights activists will likely not appreciate the um...suggestive closeups of Miss Fox's anatomy, coupled with some , er...rhythmic music. Since I am a happily married man, I can't comment on too much here, but I can say that it was probably not necessary to have her in the movie (or the boy for that matter - they were simply fillers until the robots started to fight, which is why most people - at least guys - go to see this movie). However, to add a truly, um, human element to the movie, they injected Megan Fox into the show, in the event that there are some viewers who realized 15 minutes into the movie that a film about robots is not for them - but they dropped so much cash for popcorn and drinks that it wasn't worth it to walk out. All that being said, while there was no nudity, "love scenes" or anything terribly graphic scene-wise, the highly sexualized presentation of the admittedly attractive Miss Fox was probably not needed in the movie, as was the totally unnecessary blatant reference to masturbation later on in regards to the boy. When I think of the Transformers movie, I don't want to think of masturbation references - I take "More Than Meets The Eye" at face value, thank you very much. Anyhow, her character (as was the boy's - what's his name?) didn't really add all that much to the movie, and if you ask me for my honest (and I mean honest) opinion now, I can tell you that the only thing I remember about her being in the movie is the scene where she's leaning up against Bumblebee while the camera takes some liberties in its shot angles. The overall character development of ALL the humans was rather weak.
The movie also seemed to play towards a politically correct casting method. My opinion here may seem a bit controversial and perhaps I'm simply nit-picking, but I do feel that some of the characters were cast that way in order to appease the politically-correct crowd, who want to see "diversity" among what may be perceived by some to be stereotypical roles. The fact that the senior featured "youth" analyst was an young Australian girl with piercings seems a bit weird (only because there are so few women in the computer sciences to begin with), and more so with the fact that a conservative government body like the U.S. department of defence would give her any credence being young and presumably inexperienced). I also noticed the fact that they threw in a black kid living with his mother, who was the major computer hacker. I suppose that is not unusual in and of itself, but it's not like this kid was a nerdy Steve Urkel type - instead, he acted and talked as if he was living in a metropolitan ghetto. Again, maybe not unusual, but for me, it was a bit far fetched and seemed to be the "PC" thing to do. I also noticed that the writers put the blame on North Korea/China for terrorist nukes. You'd think they would have targeted the Middle East, but NOOOO, Hollywood doesn't seem to want to do anything that puts the Middle East and particularly, Muslims in a bad light. Finally, since Transformers was a Japanese invention, it would have been really good it they could have at least had some Asian characters added, since they seemed to be featuring everyone else. At the very least, they didn't go overboard and introduce the obligatory gay character, which seems to permeate throughout the liberal left's Hollywood production of movies and television. I would have suffocated myself with my popcorn bag right then and there.
Unlike the original, there was not just one or two instances of swearing in the movie (I can debate as to whether the instances were needed at all in the original, since it really didn't add anything to the movie whatsoever), but there were a noticeable amount of swear words present in the 2007 edition. Now, this may just be a simple reflection on what seems to be an increased acceptance in modern day culture to profanity, but I still believe that a movie that had its roots in a kids' toy that was meant for 6-12 year-olds, can probably do without vulgar language.
My biggest issue with Transformers 2007 is the fact that they had so many damn humans in it, you start wondering whether it was a movie about Transformers or humans. The first, what, hour or so of the movie only features an un-transformed Bumblebee (with the exception of the original scene, which wasn't long enough), but that gets lost in the shuffle when you have to wade through all that human dialogue. At points, it really did feel like I was watching freaking Beverly Hills 90210. All the robot ass-kicking didn't start until well past the 70% mark of the movie. That made the movie worth it, but I would have personally have preferred to see more of that, and less of teenage angst and Family Ties 2007.
Overall, I liked the new movie, despite some of its shortcomings. I appreciate the fact that the producers took risks, making some updates that they know would likely alienate some long-time Transformers fans. But I don't think it would have been wise to rehash the 1986 version all over again, either. It would have been nice to see more of a deliberate connection back to the old characters, and in the process moving the audience towards the new cast of characters, rather than just introducing them all without seemingly giving a history of how we got from then to now. I am not sure if it even is meant to have any connection of the original 1986 movie, since you would have known that Optimus Prime died (if you don't know that, ooops) and Megatron ceased to exist and was re-created as Galvatron. I think it would have been good to re-establish these old links for the old-time fans (and there are tons of them out there) rather than try to simply capture the imagination of new fans with a historically revisionist version. All that being said, the film's action scenes did not disappoint and really show how far we have come in animation and realism. This aspect alone makes Transformers (2007 version) worth your consideration, if you are interested in Transformers on any level.
Since the movie's been out for a few months now, only several theatres were still playing it. One of my buddies had indicated he saw it, and that if I wanted to see it, he'd go with me. I knew of another friend who had wanted to see it, but never had time, and so I invited him, and he was able to join us with his wife and we all went to see the movie exactly two weeks ago today.
Some context before I proceed with offering up my review on the movie. I have watched the 1985/86 version of the Transformers movie ad nauseum. To me, I can remember most lines, all of the music (the soundtrack CD is still in my car). My son has proven to me that he is biologically mine, by taking up, on his own volition, a rabid fascination and keen interest in all things Transformers. I have purchased some recent versions of the figures for him, and he has requested to watch the original Transformers movie more times than I can count. As a result, I have had some recent re-introduction of the Transformers movie back from 1986. While it was a good movie, several things came to mind: 1) the music is pretty dated with Stan Bush arena rock permeating throughout the film, 2) it ended with what appears to be a scene begging for a sequel, since Unicron's head was floating into outer space and escaped the rest of him exploding, 3) the death of several high-profile Transformers has always disturbed me (and the role of Ultra Magnus was not terribly clear), and 4) there were several plot gaps in the movie that begged for a future movie that would connect the dots. So I went into the 2007 edition expecting a radically different movie, but hoping that there would be some tie in with the original.
I was right on both counts.
By the way, for those who have not seen the movie yet, I'll be sure to not put in any spoilers here (at least, not deliberately).
The 2007 movie, unlike the original, is not a cartoon. The robots and the battles were obviously all special effects and animation. Also inserted into the movie were real humans played by real actors. The music, overall, was very well chosen, having a mixture of old 80s music when appropriate (to conjure up the real-life environment for those who wish to go back to their childhood on memory lane), as well as up-to-date alternative rock (which I absolutely love). The movie took on a more serious tone, and is likely geared towards more of a teenage audience, due to some of the themes present. And as anticipated, it was a darker movie, both substance-wise as well as colour wise. Gone are the old Transformers team where many of the autobots were colourful and very fictitious looking. The newer edition of the Transformers features robots that have very intricate and fine detail. Some are even pretty scary looking. In the previous movie, even a non-fan would be able to quickly discern who was an Autobot and who was a Decepticon. In this rendition, the asthetic lines are far more blurred. Had the audio been turned off during the movie, I would have accidentally mistaken several Autobots to be bad guys.
Some good stuff: I like the fact that they brought back Optimus Prime, and the original guy who played his voice - that was a nice touch. There were some very un-Optimus lines that were a bit cheesy, such as when he said "the world wide web", but they still kept his leadership demeanour and tone. By the way, Optimus was the only one who was brought back as more or less the same vehicle. Bumblebee was brought back as well, but he is no longer a VW Beetle. Similarly, while Starscream was a jet, he was a much different looking jet and transformed as such. Megatron was something else altogether, as was Ratchet (though his function was similar). I didn't mind the changes/updating of these characters - the rendering of the robots and how they transformed was excellent, and more than made up for me having to adjust to matching up the names with the new faces.
The storyline, as unbelieveable and at times, silly, as it was, was pretty easy to understand. It didn't bring up the same "huh" questions as the original cartoon movie did. This is good that they kept the plot fairly simple, since I would presume people don't go to see Transformers in order to engage in a philosophical storyline or glean great spiritual truths, though there were enough cheesy cliches in the movie to establish your own worldview and statement of faith.
The battle scenes were, without a doubt, spectacular. I'd say that the movie lived up to the hype based on the battle scenes alone. The robots Transformed more realistically this time around, whereas in the old movie, you start to wonder "when they transformed from vehicle to robot, what happened to this part? Coupled with the excellent music that was married with the fight and action scenes, action buffs will get more than their fill of testosterone. Some people have told me that they hated the fact that the Transformers now fight with turret-type guns, gattling-type guns, and machine guns/rocket launchers, IED-looking devices, etc., rather than the traditional laser gun. I personally welcome the new weaponry. It is more sophisticated and shows the evolution of military technology. I would have been disappointed if they all just shot laser guns.
One positive aspect that I haven't heard too many people mention is subtle, but I think that it was intentional and worth mentioning. Everyone knows that North American cars have been dealt a serious blow by the Japanese and German car industry (and with good reason - just check out Consumer Reports on domestic vehicle ratings). I personally am not into domestic cars, and I myself drive a Japanese car. Regardless, I thought it was great (and refreshing) to feature so many domestic (North American) cars in a positive light, making them look cool in the movie. Say what you will about GM, but you have to admit, the Solstice looks really nice. I've never been a fan of muscle cars, but I found that they did a good job of showcasing the Mustang in the movie. Several scenes seem right out of the Fast and Furious movies (which I love) and it worked well to show off the robot in vehicle form (something that wasn't really focussed on with the G1 Transformer set).
To segue between the positive elements of the movie and some of the aspects I didn't like, I'll touch on an area that some may gloss over, but I think is worth nothing. Now, I have to be somewhat objective here. I can see both sides of the coin in that the presence of Megan Fox was both good and bad for the movie. Women's rights activists will likely not appreciate the um...suggestive closeups of Miss Fox's anatomy, coupled with some , er...rhythmic music. Since I am a happily married man, I can't comment on too much here, but I can say that it was probably not necessary to have her in the movie (or the boy for that matter - they were simply fillers until the robots started to fight, which is why most people - at least guys - go to see this movie). However, to add a truly, um, human element to the movie, they injected Megan Fox into the show, in the event that there are some viewers who realized 15 minutes into the movie that a film about robots is not for them - but they dropped so much cash for popcorn and drinks that it wasn't worth it to walk out. All that being said, while there was no nudity, "love scenes" or anything terribly graphic scene-wise, the highly sexualized presentation of the admittedly attractive Miss Fox was probably not needed in the movie, as was the totally unnecessary blatant reference to masturbation later on in regards to the boy. When I think of the Transformers movie, I don't want to think of masturbation references - I take "More Than Meets The Eye" at face value, thank you very much. Anyhow, her character (as was the boy's - what's his name?) didn't really add all that much to the movie, and if you ask me for my honest (and I mean honest) opinion now, I can tell you that the only thing I remember about her being in the movie is the scene where she's leaning up against Bumblebee while the camera takes some liberties in its shot angles. The overall character development of ALL the humans was rather weak.
The movie also seemed to play towards a politically correct casting method. My opinion here may seem a bit controversial and perhaps I'm simply nit-picking, but I do feel that some of the characters were cast that way in order to appease the politically-correct crowd, who want to see "diversity" among what may be perceived by some to be stereotypical roles. The fact that the senior featured "youth" analyst was an young Australian girl with piercings seems a bit weird (only because there are so few women in the computer sciences to begin with), and more so with the fact that a conservative government body like the U.S. department of defence would give her any credence being young and presumably inexperienced). I also noticed the fact that they threw in a black kid living with his mother, who was the major computer hacker. I suppose that is not unusual in and of itself, but it's not like this kid was a nerdy Steve Urkel type - instead, he acted and talked as if he was living in a metropolitan ghetto. Again, maybe not unusual, but for me, it was a bit far fetched and seemed to be the "PC" thing to do. I also noticed that the writers put the blame on North Korea/China for terrorist nukes. You'd think they would have targeted the Middle East, but NOOOO, Hollywood doesn't seem to want to do anything that puts the Middle East and particularly, Muslims in a bad light. Finally, since Transformers was a Japanese invention, it would have been really good it they could have at least had some Asian characters added, since they seemed to be featuring everyone else. At the very least, they didn't go overboard and introduce the obligatory gay character, which seems to permeate throughout the liberal left's Hollywood production of movies and television. I would have suffocated myself with my popcorn bag right then and there.
Unlike the original, there was not just one or two instances of swearing in the movie (I can debate as to whether the instances were needed at all in the original, since it really didn't add anything to the movie whatsoever), but there were a noticeable amount of swear words present in the 2007 edition. Now, this may just be a simple reflection on what seems to be an increased acceptance in modern day culture to profanity, but I still believe that a movie that had its roots in a kids' toy that was meant for 6-12 year-olds, can probably do without vulgar language.
My biggest issue with Transformers 2007 is the fact that they had so many damn humans in it, you start wondering whether it was a movie about Transformers or humans. The first, what, hour or so of the movie only features an un-transformed Bumblebee (with the exception of the original scene, which wasn't long enough), but that gets lost in the shuffle when you have to wade through all that human dialogue. At points, it really did feel like I was watching freaking Beverly Hills 90210. All the robot ass-kicking didn't start until well past the 70% mark of the movie. That made the movie worth it, but I would have personally have preferred to see more of that, and less of teenage angst and Family Ties 2007.
Overall, I liked the new movie, despite some of its shortcomings. I appreciate the fact that the producers took risks, making some updates that they know would likely alienate some long-time Transformers fans. But I don't think it would have been wise to rehash the 1986 version all over again, either. It would have been nice to see more of a deliberate connection back to the old characters, and in the process moving the audience towards the new cast of characters, rather than just introducing them all without seemingly giving a history of how we got from then to now. I am not sure if it even is meant to have any connection of the original 1986 movie, since you would have known that Optimus Prime died (if you don't know that, ooops) and Megatron ceased to exist and was re-created as Galvatron. I think it would have been good to re-establish these old links for the old-time fans (and there are tons of them out there) rather than try to simply capture the imagination of new fans with a historically revisionist version. All that being said, the film's action scenes did not disappoint and really show how far we have come in animation and realism. This aspect alone makes Transformers (2007 version) worth your consideration, if you are interested in Transformers on any level.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Race and Sports: Mark Bell Vs. Michael Vick Vs. Dany Heatley Vs. Donovan McNabb
I seem to be on a theme about racial issues lately and since there seems to be some of this on the news, I thought I'd throw in my own bone... This post has more of a sports focus, but I think it brings out the point that I want to make - if it doesn't, well...what can I say... This posting differs from previous postings in that I'm brainstorming this while I'm reading, so I suspect that everything will seem rather disjointed. This is not normal, but it's late, and I'm getting sleepy.
If you have read this blog from the beginning (and it's still in its infantile stage), and I know from emails to me that there are about eight of you who have, you'll know that when it comes to race issues, I almost never play the race card. I've been accused of being insensitive all the way to being called a race traitor (which I find laughable, since it seems like anyone who refuses to go into victim mode is called a race traitor). I also don't generally care what people think about my opinions - I welcome feedback, and while I admit there are times I can say things with more tact or more constructively and am open to adjusting my entries so I don't sound like an uneducated raving lunatic, I have never once felt that I needed to apologize for any opinion that I expressed here, and this won't change anytime soon. Especially when it comes to discussing racial topics.
Today we're going to talk sports. I love sports, both as a spectator as well as a participant. In fact, tomorrow, I am going out to play tennis with my son (I just bought him a Wilson SpongeBob tennis racquet tonight) and wife (who will likely watch the balls sail by, more than play, due to her pregnant condition). Anyhow, it is fitting that I discuss a marriage of two topics which intrigue me quite a bit: sports and race.
If you don't think there's been any racial overtones in the sports world for the past few years, you better give your head a shake. Particularly this year alone, there have been many incidents in sports which take on potential racial tones. My goal here, through this brainstormed posting, is to buttress my opinion that I firmly believe that there is a determinable double-standard applied to whites and black athletes in the sporting arena - I am not here to brainstorm solutions, but simply to show instances where such a double-standard seems to be in place.
To start: I'm not going to delve into the whole recent Michael Vick thing with the dogfighting, as that has had more than adequate press coverage, not to mention that for me, I already wrote a blurb about it. I think he brought much shame on the NFL, the Falcons, and his sponsors, who rightfully dropped him from his contracts. Public opinion was quick and decisive on this one, overwhelmingly condemning him for his absolutely horrendous and immensely irresponsible actions with his dog-fighting activities. It got to the point where a lady on eBay auctioned off several of her Michael Vick sports cards that have been personally chewed on by her dog, the proceeds of the auction went towards a local animal shelter. If I remember right, the auction netted thousands of dollars for these chewed up cards. Michael Vick is likely going to do jail time, and he is likely done with the NFL, based upon his indefinite suspension from the league at present. He should be punished and banned from playing in the NFL. Basketball player Stephon Marbury chimed in on Vick's suspension, indicating that he was treated with a different standard because he is a black athelete. Marbury was roundly criticized for his remarks, but you know, I agree with him for the most part. To me, as a spectator, the first impression that I got was that Vick was pounced on. I don't know anyone or have read anyone who is willing to publicly defend Vick - not necessarily excuse what he did (which was a criminal act), but to suggest that there is more to the story than what the press is telling you.
Anyway, back to my point. Let's look at a recent incident in the NHL surrounding newly minted Maple Leaf Mark Bell. If you don't know this story, Bell was traded to the Leafs from the San Jose Sharks, thrown in with the goalie Toscola (sp.). The Sharks wanted to unload him, probably because of the baggage he brings with him, the baggage being that he was convicted of drinking and driving, and causing someone a pretty bad injury as a result. He gets sentenced to six months in jail, but only AFTER the upcoming NHL season is complete (which is sometime next June, though for the Leafs, it will be next March, as usual). Now, tell me this. If I, Jeremy, were to drink and drive, hit someone injuring them, try to walk away from the accident, am found in a court of law that I am criminally responsible and am sentenced to six months in jail, do you think they would actually allow me to serve the sentence next year after my new child is born, when I have more vacation time at the beginning of the year, and when work is a little slower? No, the judge will demand that I serve out my sentence quickly and likely, immediately. The NHL suspends Bell for 15 games. Ooooh... I dunno - you can't really directly compare running a dog fighting operation with drinking and driving, but the consequences seem to indicate that drinking and driving and injuring someone is less harshly viewed upon, as opposed to being involved in dog fighting (folks, take off your PETA hats, and look at this somewhat objectively). Bell has had a LOT of supporters who muse that he should be given a second chance, that he made a foolish mistake in his youth, etc. etc. It doesn't seem to me that the general public afforded Vick the same conciliatory gestures.
How about Dany Heatley? Another hockey player - he sped in his car years ago with his friend Dan Snyder (his Atlanta Thrashers teammate) onboard, got into a horrific accident and killed his friend as a result? OK, it was an accident, but it was idiotic behaviour nonetheless and he was charged. He doesn't seem to be any worse for the wear as he's lacing up his skates. Todd Bertuzzi - in that act of angry violence against Steve Moore, knocking him out literally, as well as figuratively as it relates to his career. Bertuzzi's playing back in the league now, again no worse for the wear. Craig McTavish, former Oiler and now coach, killed someone in a drinking and driving accident, and now is a respected NHL coach (at least he still was employed in this capacity last I checked).
Rob Ramage, former Flames hockey player and Leafs captain. Also got into a drinking and driving accident which killed his buddy. I don't see anyone creating anti-Rob Ramage websites (OK, he's 48 and has been out of the game forever)...
Now think of whether they would have been welcomed back with open arms if they were black athletes? How are they really any different than Michael Vick? They broke the law. They were involved in incidents that caused injury, sometimes severe, and in a couple of cases, death to people (not animals). Yet, they don't have indefinite (likely lifetime) suspensions - not even close. Do you honestly think that a black athlete would have received such reconciled treatment? A second chance? Patrick Roy, a future Hall of Fame goalie (if he isn't already), was involved with a domestic dispute in which he physically assaulted his wife. Not really in the news. Considered a personal issue. Yet when Jason Kidd does it, he's now subhuman. I am not excusing any of these behaviours, but just like anything else, I am hoping to see some consistent rules applied to all.
A day or two ago, Donovan McNabb of the Philadelphia Eagles, a very talented multiple pro-bowl selection, went on the airwaves and intimated that there is a racial divide in that only six out of thirty-two starting QBs in the NFL are black. Seven, if you previously counted Vick. It is clear that he was insinuating that there is a racial double-standard when it comes to sports. Anyhow, McNabb's comments have been scrutinized as without merit or supporting evidence.
Rush Limbaugh, a guy for whom I used to have a lot of respect, in terms of his conservative opinions, before he started going the way of a prescription drug addict, was highly critical of Donovan McNabb a year or two ago, making a comment that he's only considered good because he's black, insinuating that if he wasn't black, he'd be mediocre at best. I'm glad that Rush was forced out of an TV analyst role shortly after that, since his comments were dead wrong. The knock on McNabb has always been not being able to win a Super Bowl, but that was the knock on Peyton Manning up until this past year. McNabb is a tremendous athlete and while I would not say that he is as good as Manning is, from a technical perspective, he's right up there with the top QBs in the league (personally, I think that the guy to watch out for in the future is Vince Young of the Titans). McNabb is a very good player, and the fact that he feels that he needs to work doubly-hard to gain acceptance does indicate a wall, invisible or otherwise, that black athletes need to overcome. That being said, some of McNabb's race card arguments lose steam pretty quickly since last I heard, 75% of NFL players are black.
Musing about this further, let's look at this from this angle. You have a predominantly white sport such as hockey. Fighting is considered part of the game and is generally not frowned upon. You have a predominantly black sport like basketball or football. Fighting is considered aggressive and signals a lack of control - remember the whole flap about the Pacers-Pistons game a couple of years back, which spilled into the stands? OK, that is an extreme example, but that was roundly criticized. Several sports commentators called the participants "animals", "savages" and such. There have been bench clearing brawls in hockey and sometimes (albeit rarely) fans are involved in the melee. I don't recall the players being labelled with such names. Remember, I am not one to cry racism at all, so if I were to make such observations, I believe there is intrinsically noteworthy as far as a double-standard is concerned.
I remember a couple of years ago, in hockey, there was a game between the Oilers and Flyers (I think). It was infested by many fights, which the commentators, as impartial as they tried to be (and they weren't try too hard), enjoyed immensely. Most of the fights were white-on-white fights. When it came, however, to Georges LaRoque dropping the gloves with Donald Brashear (both of whom were black), the crowd went significantly wilder and the commentators remarked, "look out, here's the rumble from the ghetto!" You make up your own mind on this one.
North of the border, there has been much discussion about white and black athletes in the Canadian football league (CFL). The CFL has historically been slower to integrate black QBs and coaches, but look at the league now - I follow it more than the NFL, and it's because the CFL has a really good mix of raw talent, not just settling on local talent (though I will be the first one to admit, I love watching Jesse Lumsden - a local boy - play). I've always been a fan of Casey Printers, back to his BC Lions days - so glad that he came back to the CFL after the Chiefs cut him - he is now installed as the starting QB for the Tiger Cats. The local Argos used to have Damon Allen, but now has Michael Bishop as their main pivot - he's a good QB. Henry Burris of the Stampeders just won player of the week - Burris has always been a good QB, and I'm glad to see him back in Calgary. Winnipeg has Kevin Glenn, who is probably the best QB in the CFL right now (yes, even better tha Ricky Ray). The BC Lions have Jurious (sp.) Jackson. The Alouettes are giving Marcus Brady a good shot. Remember, the CFL is an eight-team league, but has made tremendous inroads in integrating black athletes in pivotal roles on teams (not to fulfill a quota, but properly recognize the talent of these players). Guys like Pinball Clemons (who is a strong born-again Christian whom I've met), are examples of guys who really work naturally towards breaking racial stereotypes. Pinball is coach of the Argos and either GM or President of football operations. He is the first CFL black player which I can say that the mass audience has embraced without reservation.
In the NFL, last year's SuperBowl brought together the first-ever pairing of black coaches competing against one another. Both Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith happen to be very mature born again Christians, who are well respected on and off the field. Yet in several online forums in which I participate, after the Superbowl game was all said and done, people started chiming in their opinions on the game, the coaching, the players, etc. A number of people (presumably black, since I can't imagine whites making these kinds of comments) were miffed at the coaches, saying that they weren't aggressive enough, that they "acted like white coaches". Pretty sad when this is the thing you notice about a football game. Even in the CFL years ago, when Danny Barrett's Roughriders (I think) were playing the Argos (coached by Clemons), one of the TV commentators remarked "this is the first meeting of two black guy coaches" (yes, that's what he said).
I still believe people see black and white when they view sports, and treat black athletes and participants differently.
If you have read this blog from the beginning (and it's still in its infantile stage), and I know from emails to me that there are about eight of you who have, you'll know that when it comes to race issues, I almost never play the race card. I've been accused of being insensitive all the way to being called a race traitor (which I find laughable, since it seems like anyone who refuses to go into victim mode is called a race traitor). I also don't generally care what people think about my opinions - I welcome feedback, and while I admit there are times I can say things with more tact or more constructively and am open to adjusting my entries so I don't sound like an uneducated raving lunatic, I have never once felt that I needed to apologize for any opinion that I expressed here, and this won't change anytime soon. Especially when it comes to discussing racial topics.
Today we're going to talk sports. I love sports, both as a spectator as well as a participant. In fact, tomorrow, I am going out to play tennis with my son (I just bought him a Wilson SpongeBob tennis racquet tonight) and wife (who will likely watch the balls sail by, more than play, due to her pregnant condition). Anyhow, it is fitting that I discuss a marriage of two topics which intrigue me quite a bit: sports and race.
If you don't think there's been any racial overtones in the sports world for the past few years, you better give your head a shake. Particularly this year alone, there have been many incidents in sports which take on potential racial tones. My goal here, through this brainstormed posting, is to buttress my opinion that I firmly believe that there is a determinable double-standard applied to whites and black athletes in the sporting arena - I am not here to brainstorm solutions, but simply to show instances where such a double-standard seems to be in place.
To start: I'm not going to delve into the whole recent Michael Vick thing with the dogfighting, as that has had more than adequate press coverage, not to mention that for me, I already wrote a blurb about it. I think he brought much shame on the NFL, the Falcons, and his sponsors, who rightfully dropped him from his contracts. Public opinion was quick and decisive on this one, overwhelmingly condemning him for his absolutely horrendous and immensely irresponsible actions with his dog-fighting activities. It got to the point where a lady on eBay auctioned off several of her Michael Vick sports cards that have been personally chewed on by her dog, the proceeds of the auction went towards a local animal shelter. If I remember right, the auction netted thousands of dollars for these chewed up cards. Michael Vick is likely going to do jail time, and he is likely done with the NFL, based upon his indefinite suspension from the league at present. He should be punished and banned from playing in the NFL. Basketball player Stephon Marbury chimed in on Vick's suspension, indicating that he was treated with a different standard because he is a black athelete. Marbury was roundly criticized for his remarks, but you know, I agree with him for the most part. To me, as a spectator, the first impression that I got was that Vick was pounced on. I don't know anyone or have read anyone who is willing to publicly defend Vick - not necessarily excuse what he did (which was a criminal act), but to suggest that there is more to the story than what the press is telling you.
Anyway, back to my point. Let's look at a recent incident in the NHL surrounding newly minted Maple Leaf Mark Bell. If you don't know this story, Bell was traded to the Leafs from the San Jose Sharks, thrown in with the goalie Toscola (sp.). The Sharks wanted to unload him, probably because of the baggage he brings with him, the baggage being that he was convicted of drinking and driving, and causing someone a pretty bad injury as a result. He gets sentenced to six months in jail, but only AFTER the upcoming NHL season is complete (which is sometime next June, though for the Leafs, it will be next March, as usual). Now, tell me this. If I, Jeremy, were to drink and drive, hit someone injuring them, try to walk away from the accident, am found in a court of law that I am criminally responsible and am sentenced to six months in jail, do you think they would actually allow me to serve the sentence next year after my new child is born, when I have more vacation time at the beginning of the year, and when work is a little slower? No, the judge will demand that I serve out my sentence quickly and likely, immediately. The NHL suspends Bell for 15 games. Ooooh... I dunno - you can't really directly compare running a dog fighting operation with drinking and driving, but the consequences seem to indicate that drinking and driving and injuring someone is less harshly viewed upon, as opposed to being involved in dog fighting (folks, take off your PETA hats, and look at this somewhat objectively). Bell has had a LOT of supporters who muse that he should be given a second chance, that he made a foolish mistake in his youth, etc. etc. It doesn't seem to me that the general public afforded Vick the same conciliatory gestures.
How about Dany Heatley? Another hockey player - he sped in his car years ago with his friend Dan Snyder (his Atlanta Thrashers teammate) onboard, got into a horrific accident and killed his friend as a result? OK, it was an accident, but it was idiotic behaviour nonetheless and he was charged. He doesn't seem to be any worse for the wear as he's lacing up his skates. Todd Bertuzzi - in that act of angry violence against Steve Moore, knocking him out literally, as well as figuratively as it relates to his career. Bertuzzi's playing back in the league now, again no worse for the wear. Craig McTavish, former Oiler and now coach, killed someone in a drinking and driving accident, and now is a respected NHL coach (at least he still was employed in this capacity last I checked).
Rob Ramage, former Flames hockey player and Leafs captain. Also got into a drinking and driving accident which killed his buddy. I don't see anyone creating anti-Rob Ramage websites (OK, he's 48 and has been out of the game forever)...
Now think of whether they would have been welcomed back with open arms if they were black athletes? How are they really any different than Michael Vick? They broke the law. They were involved in incidents that caused injury, sometimes severe, and in a couple of cases, death to people (not animals). Yet, they don't have indefinite (likely lifetime) suspensions - not even close. Do you honestly think that a black athlete would have received such reconciled treatment? A second chance? Patrick Roy, a future Hall of Fame goalie (if he isn't already), was involved with a domestic dispute in which he physically assaulted his wife. Not really in the news. Considered a personal issue. Yet when Jason Kidd does it, he's now subhuman. I am not excusing any of these behaviours, but just like anything else, I am hoping to see some consistent rules applied to all.
A day or two ago, Donovan McNabb of the Philadelphia Eagles, a very talented multiple pro-bowl selection, went on the airwaves and intimated that there is a racial divide in that only six out of thirty-two starting QBs in the NFL are black. Seven, if you previously counted Vick. It is clear that he was insinuating that there is a racial double-standard when it comes to sports. Anyhow, McNabb's comments have been scrutinized as without merit or supporting evidence.
Rush Limbaugh, a guy for whom I used to have a lot of respect, in terms of his conservative opinions, before he started going the way of a prescription drug addict, was highly critical of Donovan McNabb a year or two ago, making a comment that he's only considered good because he's black, insinuating that if he wasn't black, he'd be mediocre at best. I'm glad that Rush was forced out of an TV analyst role shortly after that, since his comments were dead wrong. The knock on McNabb has always been not being able to win a Super Bowl, but that was the knock on Peyton Manning up until this past year. McNabb is a tremendous athlete and while I would not say that he is as good as Manning is, from a technical perspective, he's right up there with the top QBs in the league (personally, I think that the guy to watch out for in the future is Vince Young of the Titans). McNabb is a very good player, and the fact that he feels that he needs to work doubly-hard to gain acceptance does indicate a wall, invisible or otherwise, that black athletes need to overcome. That being said, some of McNabb's race card arguments lose steam pretty quickly since last I heard, 75% of NFL players are black.
Musing about this further, let's look at this from this angle. You have a predominantly white sport such as hockey. Fighting is considered part of the game and is generally not frowned upon. You have a predominantly black sport like basketball or football. Fighting is considered aggressive and signals a lack of control - remember the whole flap about the Pacers-Pistons game a couple of years back, which spilled into the stands? OK, that is an extreme example, but that was roundly criticized. Several sports commentators called the participants "animals", "savages" and such. There have been bench clearing brawls in hockey and sometimes (albeit rarely) fans are involved in the melee. I don't recall the players being labelled with such names. Remember, I am not one to cry racism at all, so if I were to make such observations, I believe there is intrinsically noteworthy as far as a double-standard is concerned.
I remember a couple of years ago, in hockey, there was a game between the Oilers and Flyers (I think). It was infested by many fights, which the commentators, as impartial as they tried to be (and they weren't try too hard), enjoyed immensely. Most of the fights were white-on-white fights. When it came, however, to Georges LaRoque dropping the gloves with Donald Brashear (both of whom were black), the crowd went significantly wilder and the commentators remarked, "look out, here's the rumble from the ghetto!" You make up your own mind on this one.
North of the border, there has been much discussion about white and black athletes in the Canadian football league (CFL). The CFL has historically been slower to integrate black QBs and coaches, but look at the league now - I follow it more than the NFL, and it's because the CFL has a really good mix of raw talent, not just settling on local talent (though I will be the first one to admit, I love watching Jesse Lumsden - a local boy - play). I've always been a fan of Casey Printers, back to his BC Lions days - so glad that he came back to the CFL after the Chiefs cut him - he is now installed as the starting QB for the Tiger Cats. The local Argos used to have Damon Allen, but now has Michael Bishop as their main pivot - he's a good QB. Henry Burris of the Stampeders just won player of the week - Burris has always been a good QB, and I'm glad to see him back in Calgary. Winnipeg has Kevin Glenn, who is probably the best QB in the CFL right now (yes, even better tha Ricky Ray). The BC Lions have Jurious (sp.) Jackson. The Alouettes are giving Marcus Brady a good shot. Remember, the CFL is an eight-team league, but has made tremendous inroads in integrating black athletes in pivotal roles on teams (not to fulfill a quota, but properly recognize the talent of these players). Guys like Pinball Clemons (who is a strong born-again Christian whom I've met), are examples of guys who really work naturally towards breaking racial stereotypes. Pinball is coach of the Argos and either GM or President of football operations. He is the first CFL black player which I can say that the mass audience has embraced without reservation.
In the NFL, last year's SuperBowl brought together the first-ever pairing of black coaches competing against one another. Both Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith happen to be very mature born again Christians, who are well respected on and off the field. Yet in several online forums in which I participate, after the Superbowl game was all said and done, people started chiming in their opinions on the game, the coaching, the players, etc. A number of people (presumably black, since I can't imagine whites making these kinds of comments) were miffed at the coaches, saying that they weren't aggressive enough, that they "acted like white coaches". Pretty sad when this is the thing you notice about a football game. Even in the CFL years ago, when Danny Barrett's Roughriders (I think) were playing the Argos (coached by Clemons), one of the TV commentators remarked "this is the first meeting of two black guy coaches" (yes, that's what he said).
I still believe people see black and white when they view sports, and treat black athletes and participants differently.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
The Jena 6 - It Can Only Happen in the U.S.
Our whole family's health has been in the crapper for the past few days, so I've been unable to formulate much of a coherent blog contribution. Now that I'm on the mend, there are a number of items on which I would like to chime in, not the least of which is the current situation in Jena, Louisiana. If this is news to you, this is essentially the gist of the story:
The town high school in Jena, for all intents and purposes is segregated. Not officially, of course, but you know how it is in certain parts of the U.S. (my brother went to Kentucky several years back and told me that he felt as if he was going to be lynched, and that was him being in the company of his mostly Caucasian friends with whom he travelled). Honestly, I've never really had a burning desire to visit the American South, and these types of stories just really re-iterate my perceptions, whether they are justified or not. I have spoken with enough people who live in the American South, both black and white, who have uniformly confirmed that racism is alive and well in that part of the country.
Anyhow, with the high school being unofficially segregated, there is this big tree under which whites predominantly gather. One day, so the story goes, some black kids want to sit in the shade of tree and so they ask their principal or vice-principal, who tells them they can sit wherever they want. So they sit in the shade of this tree. Shortly after (a day or so), three black nooses are hung on the tree. The white kids who were responsible for this act are discovered and the principal recommended that they be expelled. The school board disagreed and in the end they received three day suspensions.
All of this may have triggered a number of other racial incidents, one of which involved a white boy who was beaten up badly by six black youths, who became known as the Jena 6. While I can detail the other incidents, the problem I find is that there are conflicting stories on either side (like, with the arson done to the school - both sides are blaming each other). The media, unfortunately, being its liberal self, chooses to make these black youths like victims. Don't get me wrong - I think to a degree, they are, as there are some clear injustices done here with the white kids not being charged with hate crimes (which I believe they should have been)...but remember, these six black kids beat the crap out of the white kid because of an alleged racial slur (which again would qualify for charges stemming from a hate crime); last I checked, it is not kosher to attack someone unless it's in self-defence, which this doesn't sound like it was (six on one?). So let's remember, that no matter what injustices were done to these black kids, they are still responsible for what they did to the white kid. Do I sympathize with their reaction? Absolutely. If there is anything that can make me violent, it is calling me racial epithets - and yes, I do realize that how I react may potentially land me in jail, and these kids should know that they committed a crime (the severity of the charge may be debated, but it was a crime nonetheless), and those reporting on this case should at least not glean over this fact.
Does there seem to be racist overtones throughout the events? Absolutely. The white kid went to court in front of an all white jury with all white witnesses called by a white prosecutor in front of a white judge. Normally, such details would be lost on me, but in the American South, when you have six black defendants in front of a white jury, prosecutor and judge, and the white plaintiff does not get any type of charge or reprimand for using the "n" word, but the six blacks face attempted murder charges (they should face assault charges for sure). Apparently, even in court the blacks and whites sat on separate sides. Sheesh. What I don't get is the overwhelming media and politician response to free these six guys. They freaking attacked someone. Unless it can be proven it was in self-defence, these guys aren't exactly innocent. However, the white guy who instigated the attack should be charged with a hate crime.
The media is not reporting this right. In a lot of reports, it is stated that the D.A. addressed a school assembly and looked directly at the black teens (who of course, were on one side of the gym) and indicated that he can take their lives away with a stroke of a pen. What the media fails to report is that this incident is hotly debated, and there are a number of people who are willing to come forward to contend that this never occurred in the assembly. Yet the media seems to indicate it as fact, since it is fashionable to call for the instant release and the dropping of all charges against the Jena 6. Even in my reading of this case, something doesn't smell right with a lot of incidents. It seems like some of this is taken out of context. Back to my point about the six youths - the media does not place much emphasis on the fact that they attacked that guy. The media also gives more attention than it should to those big mouths Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who of course, can find nothing wrong with any black youth. They will, of course, be involved in the march on Thursday in Jena protested this whole fiasco. There is apparently a petition going around too.
I think in this case, there was definitely wrongs done, but I believe it was on both sides.
I'm not done on this race theme. More tomorrow, with a sports twist.
The town high school in Jena, for all intents and purposes is segregated. Not officially, of course, but you know how it is in certain parts of the U.S. (my brother went to Kentucky several years back and told me that he felt as if he was going to be lynched, and that was him being in the company of his mostly Caucasian friends with whom he travelled). Honestly, I've never really had a burning desire to visit the American South, and these types of stories just really re-iterate my perceptions, whether they are justified or not. I have spoken with enough people who live in the American South, both black and white, who have uniformly confirmed that racism is alive and well in that part of the country.
Anyhow, with the high school being unofficially segregated, there is this big tree under which whites predominantly gather. One day, so the story goes, some black kids want to sit in the shade of tree and so they ask their principal or vice-principal, who tells them they can sit wherever they want. So they sit in the shade of this tree. Shortly after (a day or so), three black nooses are hung on the tree. The white kids who were responsible for this act are discovered and the principal recommended that they be expelled. The school board disagreed and in the end they received three day suspensions.
All of this may have triggered a number of other racial incidents, one of which involved a white boy who was beaten up badly by six black youths, who became known as the Jena 6. While I can detail the other incidents, the problem I find is that there are conflicting stories on either side (like, with the arson done to the school - both sides are blaming each other). The media, unfortunately, being its liberal self, chooses to make these black youths like victims. Don't get me wrong - I think to a degree, they are, as there are some clear injustices done here with the white kids not being charged with hate crimes (which I believe they should have been)...but remember, these six black kids beat the crap out of the white kid because of an alleged racial slur (which again would qualify for charges stemming from a hate crime); last I checked, it is not kosher to attack someone unless it's in self-defence, which this doesn't sound like it was (six on one?). So let's remember, that no matter what injustices were done to these black kids, they are still responsible for what they did to the white kid. Do I sympathize with their reaction? Absolutely. If there is anything that can make me violent, it is calling me racial epithets - and yes, I do realize that how I react may potentially land me in jail, and these kids should know that they committed a crime (the severity of the charge may be debated, but it was a crime nonetheless), and those reporting on this case should at least not glean over this fact.
Does there seem to be racist overtones throughout the events? Absolutely. The white kid went to court in front of an all white jury with all white witnesses called by a white prosecutor in front of a white judge. Normally, such details would be lost on me, but in the American South, when you have six black defendants in front of a white jury, prosecutor and judge, and the white plaintiff does not get any type of charge or reprimand for using the "n" word, but the six blacks face attempted murder charges (they should face assault charges for sure). Apparently, even in court the blacks and whites sat on separate sides. Sheesh. What I don't get is the overwhelming media and politician response to free these six guys. They freaking attacked someone. Unless it can be proven it was in self-defence, these guys aren't exactly innocent. However, the white guy who instigated the attack should be charged with a hate crime.
The media is not reporting this right. In a lot of reports, it is stated that the D.A. addressed a school assembly and looked directly at the black teens (who of course, were on one side of the gym) and indicated that he can take their lives away with a stroke of a pen. What the media fails to report is that this incident is hotly debated, and there are a number of people who are willing to come forward to contend that this never occurred in the assembly. Yet the media seems to indicate it as fact, since it is fashionable to call for the instant release and the dropping of all charges against the Jena 6. Even in my reading of this case, something doesn't smell right with a lot of incidents. It seems like some of this is taken out of context. Back to my point about the six youths - the media does not place much emphasis on the fact that they attacked that guy. The media also gives more attention than it should to those big mouths Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who of course, can find nothing wrong with any black youth. They will, of course, be involved in the march on Thursday in Jena protested this whole fiasco. There is apparently a petition going around too.
I think in this case, there was definitely wrongs done, but I believe it was on both sides.
I'm not done on this race theme. More tomorrow, with a sports twist.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The Modern Day Re-Definining of Sports and Athletes
Is it just me, or have you noticed that there is a general shift in the world of televised sports towards activities which have historically (and rightfully so) been considered more pastimes than sports? You know, I think it has a lot to do with what people these days consider sport and how people define competition. Traditionally, I think it would be safe to say that sports were comprised of athletes who had undergone rigorous training, to the point that they are physically able to perform at competitive levels that others are not. Aspects of physical fitness such as endurance, speed, strength, and agility were highly valued in athletes, particularly with trained athletes in team sports, who competed against one another. Much of what was considered a sport was the ingrained notion of physical training, of developing speed, strength, accuracy, etc. You can see this in hockey and basketball, in swimming, tennis, and volleyball as well - these athletes are well developed physically and perform at levels most of us cannot realize for ourselves in our lifetime.
Flipping through the TV channels these days (I don't have cable, but know what's playing and also have access to internet nightly sports wrap-up shows), I see that what is now considered fodder for the sports nut is pretty loosely defined. Consider that on any given week (or even weeknight), you will see one or more of the following on the sports programs: curling, NASCAR racing, equestrian, bowling, darts, and now lately, the mother-of-all-things-non-sport, poker. My goodness. Freaking poker is now considered a sport! Actually, did not ABC Sports air the World Spelling Bee Championships earlier this summer? Sheesh! Sorry to all those folks that love to play poker, but how is poker a sport? You sit on your ass and flip cards around, while you chew on a toothpick and look through your way-too-dark sunglasses? Heck, I'd consider sitting on the toilet a more athletic activity. At the very least, you're exerting yourself physically!
Equestrian and NASCAR have always been two of my biggest beefs with televised "sports". Yes, they've been around forever (unfortunately). In either case, what kind of physical training does one really need to do? The car and the horse are doing all the work - OK, sure you need to know how to point the car or the horse in the right direction, but surely you can't tell me that making 500 left turns in one afternoon is a testament to the triumph of the human body. Or that making Mr. Ed jump some obstacles somehow qualifies as rigorous activity (before all you horse-lovers start emailing me to complain, yes, I do realize that the horse is actually working, but why is the horse not interviewed afterwards? They always interview the freaking jockey, who just pulls the reins). I'm sure there's more to it than that, but I'd say probably not much more.
Bowling - that would be a little better, but have you seen the shape of some of these guys (I mean shape from a fitness perspective, as well as from a physically geometrical perspective). These dudes will probably run out of breath leaving the bowling alley in the event that someone pulled the fire alarm. Same for darts. I'd say that yes, you train for accuracy, but throwing a dart is hardly exhausting and will burn off the calories? Again, just look at the shape of most dart players (fitness and geometry).
Yes, I know what you will say next - how come I'm not slamming golf? I mean, they have John Daly available, with all his girth and cigarette smoking. And who can forget this year's PGA championship, where eventual winner Angel Cabrera, a pretty big man, if I can say that, was seen a bit out of breath walking up the 18th green, all the while puffing a large cigar. OK, I will have to admit, golf is not a great example of athletic prowess, but it is better than all those others I described above. At least the human is actually walking. At least, there is swing strength to consider. It also works your upper body, and you're swinging much more than in baseball (which is another one of those borderline sports, but I'd chalk it up as a sport because of the fact that there is definitely fitness involved - in baserunning, in pitching, in fielding (maybe not the outfielders per se). Most recreational players in golf also have to haul their own bag around, so that adds to the workout. I am not saying that golf is on the same level as hockey or volleyball or wrestling, but it's more rigorous than the others I have listed.
I think much of this has to do with the eroding, if not all-out reduced standards for what is considered physical discipline, as it relates to fitness. You see elsewhere in society where standards have eroded (look at education or general work ethic). Even in department and clothing stores has this trend become apparent, with stores offering "plus-sized" clothing, thereby accepting that it's OK to be obese, rather than pushing people towards become more fit and active. With more people spending time in front of TVs and computers, the producers of sporting programs need to cater to a less-than-active viewership than they used to. Surely they can't continue to show physically top-of-the-level athletes to a bunch of pot-bellied couch potatoes whose idea of physical exercise is pressing the remote. Unfortunately, though, but showing these less-than-active "sports", they continue to perpetuate physical complacency amongst their viewership, and what was once considered a standard (being physically fit) that people should strive towards, is now simply a token means of empathy to the person who is willing to settle for less.
Flipping through the TV channels these days (I don't have cable, but know what's playing and also have access to internet nightly sports wrap-up shows), I see that what is now considered fodder for the sports nut is pretty loosely defined. Consider that on any given week (or even weeknight), you will see one or more of the following on the sports programs: curling, NASCAR racing, equestrian, bowling, darts, and now lately, the mother-of-all-things-non-sport, poker. My goodness. Freaking poker is now considered a sport! Actually, did not ABC Sports air the World Spelling Bee Championships earlier this summer? Sheesh! Sorry to all those folks that love to play poker, but how is poker a sport? You sit on your ass and flip cards around, while you chew on a toothpick and look through your way-too-dark sunglasses? Heck, I'd consider sitting on the toilet a more athletic activity. At the very least, you're exerting yourself physically!
Equestrian and NASCAR have always been two of my biggest beefs with televised "sports". Yes, they've been around forever (unfortunately). In either case, what kind of physical training does one really need to do? The car and the horse are doing all the work - OK, sure you need to know how to point the car or the horse in the right direction, but surely you can't tell me that making 500 left turns in one afternoon is a testament to the triumph of the human body. Or that making Mr. Ed jump some obstacles somehow qualifies as rigorous activity (before all you horse-lovers start emailing me to complain, yes, I do realize that the horse is actually working, but why is the horse not interviewed afterwards? They always interview the freaking jockey, who just pulls the reins). I'm sure there's more to it than that, but I'd say probably not much more.
Bowling - that would be a little better, but have you seen the shape of some of these guys (I mean shape from a fitness perspective, as well as from a physically geometrical perspective). These dudes will probably run out of breath leaving the bowling alley in the event that someone pulled the fire alarm. Same for darts. I'd say that yes, you train for accuracy, but throwing a dart is hardly exhausting and will burn off the calories? Again, just look at the shape of most dart players (fitness and geometry).
Yes, I know what you will say next - how come I'm not slamming golf? I mean, they have John Daly available, with all his girth and cigarette smoking. And who can forget this year's PGA championship, where eventual winner Angel Cabrera, a pretty big man, if I can say that, was seen a bit out of breath walking up the 18th green, all the while puffing a large cigar. OK, I will have to admit, golf is not a great example of athletic prowess, but it is better than all those others I described above. At least the human is actually walking. At least, there is swing strength to consider. It also works your upper body, and you're swinging much more than in baseball (which is another one of those borderline sports, but I'd chalk it up as a sport because of the fact that there is definitely fitness involved - in baserunning, in pitching, in fielding (maybe not the outfielders per se). Most recreational players in golf also have to haul their own bag around, so that adds to the workout. I am not saying that golf is on the same level as hockey or volleyball or wrestling, but it's more rigorous than the others I have listed.
I think much of this has to do with the eroding, if not all-out reduced standards for what is considered physical discipline, as it relates to fitness. You see elsewhere in society where standards have eroded (look at education or general work ethic). Even in department and clothing stores has this trend become apparent, with stores offering "plus-sized" clothing, thereby accepting that it's OK to be obese, rather than pushing people towards become more fit and active. With more people spending time in front of TVs and computers, the producers of sporting programs need to cater to a less-than-active viewership than they used to. Surely they can't continue to show physically top-of-the-level athletes to a bunch of pot-bellied couch potatoes whose idea of physical exercise is pressing the remote. Unfortunately, though, but showing these less-than-active "sports", they continue to perpetuate physical complacency amongst their viewership, and what was once considered a standard (being physically fit) that people should strive towards, is now simply a token means of empathy to the person who is willing to settle for less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)