The Miscarriage - One Year Later

I had to (unfortunately) work late last night at a client site (with one of the annoying client site managers breathing down our back, as we were trying to fix her intermittent problems with VPN connectivity), so by the time I got home, I was beat. I also have been struggling with a sore throat, so I haven't given much thought to really anything else yesterday. I was actually hoping to be done the work early, but that was both premature and presumptuous for me to think that, given our experience with this client. Anyhow, due to all this, I didn't get a chance to do much thinking yesterday.

I was well aware of the significance of October 30, and in particular the fact that one year ago, we lost our baby, the one we've been trying to have for a few years now. It was a difficult time for both of us, and while we rejoice at the fact that we are expecting again (around 5 months now - so far so good), it still doesn't (and shouldn't) erase the memory from last year. I won't be writing a tome on this whole topic, since I've already covered it in much greater detail in two other entries, but suffice it to say, I believe that this is one of the most difficult experiences in life to go through. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, and I think that those who have gone through it have a much better sense of the fact that life is precious and can be taken at any time. As a result, it really helps to put things into perspective in that we should enjoy life while we are here, and rejoice and celebrate new life. I was vehemently against abortion before we experienced our miscarriage. I am now even more convinced that the availability of a method to systematically destroy innocent life is perhaps the biggest travesty in the world right now.

I suppose if there is any comfort from what happened to us last year, it was stated well by my wife last night as we lay in bed, talking in the dark about how we feel one year later, and between us both breaking into tears, she reminded me that our little baby is safely in the arms of Jesus now, and we know he/she is in a better place than this world will ever be able to provide.

Away From Her - Film Review

Yesterday night, I did something unexpected, something that was totally against the fabric of my masculine being, something that was arguably against the way God had designed a man.

I rented a chick flick.

I hate putting down my hard earned money on crappy movies of all genres. It just so happens that based on my experience, these tear-jerker dramatic types tend to take the cake, in terms of making me realize that food digestion takes more than a couple of hours. But in the spirit of wanting to afford my wife some viewing options, I thought it best for me to not force my preference of action/suspense thriller movies onto her once more. She is pregnant, after all, and I must be sensitive to her proclivities at this point in her pregnancy.

So I scanned the new release shelves of Blockbuster for anything that would elicit a reaction that would be akin to "Like hell, will I watch that!" Just for good measure, I read the description on the back of the box, and if it was something that screamed, "You're a true homo if you watch this!", that would be my choice for the evening.

So I brought home a movie entitled, "Away From Her". Essentially, from what I remember from what the box said, the movie is about a married couple over 50, both of whom are struggling with the wife's obviously increased disposition towards developing Alzheimer's disease, and how he reconciles the fact that her affections are for another man.

If you are a truly heterosexual red-blooded male, and read that on the back of the box, I am willing to bet nine times out of ten, you'd place the box back on the shelf and run out of the store, grabbing your hair, and screaming to have dinner at Hooter's. I guess I felt like the 1 in 10 men who contemplated renting the movie long enough to actually rent it. Besides, I reasoned, this is for my wife, not for me. I'll go along and perhaps daydream about my business transactions or my investment portfolio, as I present the disposition of actually watching the movie.

Now, I did not know that this was a Canadian film. I may have suspected it, since I saw the lovely and talented Sarah Polley was producing it. And it starred Gordon Pinsent, whose Canadian films I've seen before and whose acting I admire, as well as Julie Christie, who was once a easy-on-the-eyes Russian agent in a James Bond movie.

I won't give away many plot details in case you haven't seen the movie, but for a Canadian production, it was pretty good (and I say that to not debase Canadian productions, but it's just a known fact that while Canadian movies are generally a breath of fresh air from the standard American fare, they are generally of lower caliber from all aspects from production, acting, plot and music). Away From Her was not a flashy movie, but based on the subject matter, it wasn't supposed to be. You won't be finding any stunts or explosions/light shows, or latest cutting edge music on the soundtrack. It was a wistful, contemplative movie that really relied on Pinsent and Christie's characters to roll the plot along. There were some nice supportive characters which were acted very well by their real-life counterparts, which added more rounding and substance to the story.

The progression of the plot, while some may consider a bit on the slow side, I thought was done very well in order to really delve into the characters feelings and expressions, as well as to show the slow onset of Alzheimer's. There were a number of scenes in which nothing was said, but the point was made quite clear, before the scene faded. I thought that such tools to progress the plot and enhance character development were very well done.

I did notice, unfortunately, that there was obviously some seemingly forced Canadian content (quota) that they had to meet, since they threw in names of Canadian cities and towns in the oddest places in conversation. I think from the cinematography and landscape, you can tell it was a Canadian production - they didn't have to put in all the references to Brantford or British Columbia or whatever. It was really out of place. In U.S. movies, they don't name drop U.S. towns and cities so blatantly.

Also out of place (and likely inappropriate) was the blatant anti-American sentiment seen when the characters are watching coverage of the war in the Middle East. This is obviously Polley's severe left-wing bent that is making its appearance, but for a movie with this topic, it neither added to the plot nor added to the characters.

Sadly, in today's films, the producers and writers just cannot get away from swearing or using cuss words. Unfortunately Away From Her was not immune to this. There were several instances where characters used f-words liberally (the only person who used a swear word that was somewhat believeable was the teenage gothic girl who sat on the couch beside Mr. Anderson, at one scene. To have a frail old woman on a walker, who obviously had some horny hormones going, using the term, "claustrof*ck" seemed not only out of place, but it was seen as a cheap stunt to be on par with typical Hollywood productions. Take out all the swearing and the film would be so much better.

Overall, however, I found the film to be...oh my gosh...heartwarming. My wife made liberal use of the Kleenex box throughout the movie and I must admit, I did develop some moist eyeballs at several points (probably due to my house being so damn dry in the fall). I thought they they explored the progression of Alzheimer's in a respectful and realistic way. The actors did a fantastic job in bringing out the emotions of the characters and that only added to the admirable job in how the characters were developed. My wife wished that the ending was a bit neater (it left a few loose ends), but I think it was deliberately done like that as to not follow the typical American film formula. Away from Her is definitely worth your consideration, and no, I won't think you are a homo if you watch it.

Road Rage Revisited

I was in a prayer meeting a year or two ago, where one of the participants honestly and bravely admitted that she struggles with road rage. Particularly in a metropolitan city like Toronto where you have drivers from different generations, cultures, ages, sexes, and social classes, you are bound to eventually be a victim of a bad driver, or even be one yourself. In the past few years, there have been stories of street racing and the unfortunate byproducts of idiots (usually young males) who put their lives in danger, but of more concern, they put the lives of innocent bystanders in danger. If these young punks die in a speeding accident, I shed no tear for them. They made their bed - they will be sleeping in it. But sadly, road racing does not happen in a vacuum, and seldom is it just the participants who are injured and / or killed. I'm sure we've all heard of cases where innocent bystanders walking their kids on the sidewalk all of the sudden have their lives taken from them in a tragic accident. Even folks who are stopped at a light or stop sign with their cars have been maimed or killed by people who are speeding. People are rightfully angry about this, and they should be. But that is not the topic of this discussion, though I'm sure I'll visit it another day.

What I'm focussing on when I say road rage are people who are (usually) an offended victim, who decide to retaliate through various means. The most often cause of this is someone who cuts you off. Now, this may not seem like that much of a big deal to most of you, but if it wasn't, we wouldn't have incidents of people following others in their car, attacking them physically when stopped, vandalizing their car, or pulling out a firearm and providing a dose of mentally unstable frontier justice.

The very first incident of road rage, I saw when I was a little kid - about seven or eight years old. My Dad was driving us home in our snot-green Chevrolet Malibu in Edmonton, when all of the sudden, one of the cars to our right tried to pass another car and that car would not let them pass. I remember being stopped at a light and looking over and seeing two pretty scruffy looking dudes jump out and start mouthing what I almost certainly can conclude were obscenities to one another (my window was thankfully up, so my poor virgin ears did not have to be subjected to this at such an early age). My Dad didn't really see the incident and when I told him, he just drove on, indicating, "this is not our business." Of course, being a naturally curious sort, I decided to crane my head back, as we were driving away. The last thing I saw (and this image has been seared into my mind ever since) was one of the men pushing the other guy, who then slugged him in the face. They then both grappled with each other and fell onto the sidewalk where I remember one guy being on top and pounding the snot out of the other guy. I always thought that that was one of the most interesting things I've ever seen in my entire life.

As a young person growing up who relied on my Dad for transportation (my Mom was too timid to drive us around), I don't remember ever seeing my Dad blow his top at a fellow driver. Perhaps that could be because on occasion, my Dad was the one who "accidentally" cut off someone, go to slow and drew the wrath of other drivers who liberally produced a middle finger salute, which my Dad simply ignored. But I never saw my Dad get red-faced, or explode in a demonstration of expletives because of being wronged by another driver. I give my Dad much credit in how I conducted himself, and I hope that for the most part, I have learned from his example (even though I cannot claim that I have a wrath-free record when driving). I'd like to leverage some of my experiences and perhaps show the other side of the road rage conversation. I will, at the outset, be very clear that I do not condone road rage. My wife has been wronged by other drivers and she generally gets upset and starts to mouth some obscenities under her breath, but that's about as far as it goes. Interestingly enough, she does the same thing when playing international online backgammon. But my wife is a fairly amendable person to begin with, and as such, there is much to respect about how she handles such people. I, on the other hand, cannot claim such a perfect record, so I totally empathize with my fellow believer who confessed her anger at bad drivers.

Now, I can tell you that I have never bumped anyone off the road. I have never followed anyone home. I have never vandalized anyone's car (felt like it one time, but coolness easily prevailed. For this reason, I never want to get one of those Christian fish symbols on my car). I have never physically accosted someone. I've never gotten out of my car (came close once). In fact, there was only ONE time in my entire life that I exercised some questionable behaviour in response to a bad driver. My wife, was, unfortunately, witness to this bad display, as well as my son, who thankfully, as an infant, will not ever recollect his Daddy blowing his top like this. It was several years ago at the mall near my house. As with most malls in the Toronto area, entering the parking lot of a mall usually was set up in a "T" structure. If you look at the letter "T", you can see the horizontal line and the vertical line. I was going into the mall in the vertical line and had the right of way. It was an intersection which had a stop sign on either side of the horizontal "T" line. As I was making my left, I was severely cut off by some young punk ass 20-year-old something guy who obviously thought it was a three way stop even though it wasn't. Now, this typically doesn't bother me, since people make mistakes all the time, and usually, I'd gesture to them through my windshield that I had the right of way and then they apologize and let me through. Sometimes, I see they are too far into the intersection, so I will let them through. No biggie, right? We're all adults here. Well, this guy, for whatever reason, insisted on going through the intersection even though I was already in it and had the right of way. So I honked my horn and politely (honest!) gestured that I had the right of way. He then rolled out his windows and started screaming a barrage of "F" words to me, followed by a racial epithet, as well as a single middle finger salute. Well, the F-words irritate me, but the racial epithets threw me overboard. I rolled down my window and started throwing all sorts of F-words at him, showing him that I had two middle fingers that functioned perfectly well, and then threw my arms out as in the gesture "you want a piece of me?" Honestly, had he gotten out of his car, I probably would have gotten out of mine. But thankfully, my wife was there and touched my arm and said, "that's enough - just let the *ss**** go. You don't need to do this." We got to the mall, and I was so steamed I didn't even remember what we bought that day. I ended up writing the town a letter indicating that they need to change that intersection so it clearly says incoming traffic has the right of way, in order to avoid these types of situations. Since then, I have seen several accidents at that intersection, no doubt due to people having no clue as to who is supposed to go first.

Now, given that that is my only claim to fame for road rage all these years, it's not too bad (of course, I would have preferred to have my Dad's 100% all clean non-rage driving record - at least it was 100% all clean when we were around). I think back on it and am a little embarrassed that I made such a spectacle in front of my family, but since I am typically not prone to such public outbursts, I suspect that anyone, even the most mild mannered individual, given the right set of circumstances and environmental factors, can just as easily pounce on a bad driver, and one who decides that it is YOUR fault, even though it is clearly theirs. I think this is probably the single aspect of an interaction that would cause a road rage incident. Usually, if someone cuts me off and I give them the horn, they will admit that they are wrong and give a wave of their hand. That is cool. We all make mistakes. I've done the same thing to other people, and had to apologize. However, when someone decides to put the blame on you for something they did, I suspect many people will see the inherent injustice in that.

Now, as much of an advocate of gun ownership that I am, I am glad that we don't live in the U.S., where everyone can simply carry a gun around because it's enshrined in their constitution. I've heard of way too many sad incidents of people pulling weapons out and opening fire on each other, when in fact a little time to cool down and some clear thinking would have saved them a lot of aggravation, a criminal record, and prison time. But of course, in this day and age, when people are increasingly stressed by work, finances, family life and relationship problems, many people on the roads and highways are ticking time bombs waiting to go off. I usually can spot them by their aggressive driving and complete lack of discretion when using their horns. I usually get out of their way, not because I feel like being bullied, but I would prefer not to get into an altercation with them. Besides, it's so easy to act on impulse and do something you regret later, so sometimes, it's just better to yield. I know it's harder said than done, and in a multicultural city in Toronto, it's very easy to identify a certain demographic by their driving skills and dump all over them. But I believe that, just like anything else, we show more character in restraint than by acting by impulse, so while it may be our natural inclination to show someone our gracefully erect middle digit, it really doesn't ultimately accomplish anything positive.

What Is Gary Bettman Trying to Prove?

I don't know about you, but if you're a hockey fan like me, don't you get sick of hearing about the constant woes of the Nashville Predators? Without going into painstaking detail, the owner of the Predators, Craig Leopold, has been trying to sell the Predators for months. In the time he has owned the Predators, they have been a consistently losing investment. Yes, the team is talented and has put a good product on the ice, and has been in the upper echelon of teams in the NHL, but come on, the team is in friggin' Nashville, for Pete's sake. Hardly a bastion of hockey fandom. Case in point - last year in the playoffs, when Nashville was ranked #1 or #2 or #3 in their conference, local Nashville papers and sports programs didn't even cover or talk about the playoff games in progress. That's because no one cares about hockey down there.

Earlier this year, the CEO of Research in Motion, Jim Balsillie, offered to buy the team and was willing to essentially overpay for the team. Talks were set in motion and they were close to a deal, when Balsillie tipped his hand and started to sell season tickets in the Hamilton area for a hockey team that had yet to relocate there. The NHL and it's commissioner, Gary Bettman found out about this, and persuaded Leopold to pull the plug on the deal. Since then, no one has offered anything even close to what Balsillie offered.

I am disappointed that Balsillie got railroaded by the NHL. Yes, he didn't play it smart and kept his mouth shut until the deal was done, but why the NHL nixed it because of his clear intentions to re-locate, I will never understand. Moving it to Hamilton or Kitchener-Waterloo would be a huge boost to the local economy, but more than that, it would breakdown the monopolizing power of Maple Leafs Sports Entertainment (MLSE) and would immediately force the Leafs to put a competitive product on the ice (as we speak, the Leafs are in familiar territory this year - mediocre to suckedness). Hamilton/KW would have easily supported another NHL franchise - OK, so the Leafs (and possibly Sabres) will feel some pressure, but so what? Competition is good. Monopoly is bad.

What I find strange is that Leopold wants to sell the team - he is desperate to do so. But he won't sell to Balsillie, because of Balsillie's clear intent to move the team. Balsillie is not a dumb guy - he knows the team won't survive in Nashville, and he also knows that Leopold lost a truckload of money over the years. But somehow Bettman convinced Leopold not to sell (my guess is that the NHL offered to top off any lower offer to make it worth Leopold's while). Nowadays, a consortium of people are trying to save the Preds but putting together an offer, complete with arena rights and so forth.

Why can't Bettman just realize that pushing professional hockey in the U.S. will be a long-term losing proposition. He is too proud to admit that his experiment did not work, that's why. His cronie, Bill Daly, the NHL Vice-President, was on a radio talk show this past summer and he was asked point blank whether Bettman is anti-Canada. Daly skirted the issue and refused comment.

Fact of the matter is, there is not really a whole lot of success stories to report on the expansion teams. Why they stuck a team in Columbus, OH, I will never know. Even some seasoned teams like the Chicago BlackHawks are having problems drawing people into the game. Rather than focussing on existing teams, Bettman seems to have this otherworldly mentality that he must expand, and now his crazy head is looking at over the pond in Europe and Scandanavia.

If you look at the other commissioners in sports (David Stern for the NBA, Roger Goddell for the NFL), they are doing things right. They make sure that the current teams are not flat broke, and they are ensuring that they don't expand if the conditions aren't right. And they are not afraid to yank teams from markets that are simply not working. Bettman needs to take a look at these successful commissioners who are out to better their respective leagues, not just make themselves look good.

The Value of Commitment

Last Friday, my colleagues and my current manager took me out for a really nice luncheon, to celebrate my ten (10) years of service working for my company. Hard to believe a decade has gone by. I remember, when I first got this job, my Dad said to me, "you'll be lucky if you last a year." This was hardly encouraging, but he was probably looking at it from the perspective that I had absolutely no formal IT experience, and I was entering a fast-paced emerging technology sector, and it was sink or swim, and he knew that I wasn't terribly fond of the pool. Well, ten years later, multiple technical certifications later, and a couple of promotions later, I can't say that it's been all that bad.

Now, I would be lying to you if I told you that the whole time, it was all peachy and I had the time of my life. Fact of the matter is, I went through several periods where I thought that I was going to lose my job, due to constant pressures from potential offshoring opportunities or from competitors winning our contracts, but in the end, I'm still here. I had a few years with a fairly demanding manager and we never really got along all that well. I used to manage a country-wide team of technical people. Now, the team is reduced to a local level - everyone else, including many senior people, were let go. My job isn't exactly the most exciting, but it pays the bills and I've long since adopted the dual mentality that work is only a means to an end, but also the fact that there are greater purposes to me being here that I may not know about. As a Christian, I have to accept the (oftentimes difficult) notion that God may place you somewhere that may not be ideal, but He has a purpose for you being there. It has been hard to accept this over the years, since I had quickly developed the mentality that I must climb the corporate ladder, earn an insane income and get ahead career-wise. Having a child changed all that. While I put my best foot forward everyday in my job, since I like earning the paycheque, I realize that in the end, it's just a job. Even though I'm not yet on my deathbed, I believe the old adage is very true in that no one generally has regrets at the twilight of their life, that they didn't work more hours or make more money.

I have had opportunities over the years to get other jobs - sometimes I have pursued them. Sometimes, they have pursued me. Some of the positions were quite senior and they offered me oodles of cash, but in a few cases, I turned it down because of the requirement to travel and be away from the family.

I knew of a fellow with whom I used to work in the office, who told me that his goal is life is to constantly move ahead from a career perspective, and as such, he does not feel any particular loyalty to any particular employer; in fact, he says that most employers will screw you over when times get tough, so why bother even remotely form any gesture of loyalty? I can see his point - companies these days don't really put as much value on their employees being loyal. I've seen folks who have worked with the same company for 35 years get their walking papers one morning with no forewarning and no advance notice. That bothers me. However, when it comes down to it, I have to disagree with my former colleague and the reason why constitutes the topic that I am floating today: the value of commitment.

I've had this discussion with people both inside and outside of the workplace for years. Why do people leave their jobs? Now, we're talking voluntary separation here, not forced attrition through mass layoffs and such. Well, I believe there are only a handful of reasons people leave their jobs. One, and I believe this to be the primary reason, is because they believe they are not being paid what they feel they are worth. Regardless of how you spin this, it ultimately comes down to them wanting more money. That is, of course, personal choice, but I have seen staff leave here for apparently greener pastures monetarily, only to find that the grass is actually astroturf on the other side, and in a short time, they are looking for something else or, in some cases, even want their old job back. So the first reason is purely financial (again, I am not knocking people for making the decision - their family needs may require them to make more money). The second reason why I believe people leave their jobs often these days is because they are not challenged. If you isolate and dissect this statement out, you will ultimately see that it has to do with their career mobility, which has a direct correlation to getting a higher position which ultimately leads to higher pay. The third reason I believe people are changing jobs is because of an inability to get along with their co-workers or their management. Again, I am not slighting anyone who makes this decision, as I'm sure it would be difficult forcing yourself to get out of bed to face people who put you down or were hard on you all day. Another reason, which I won't itemize here is the vague, "I just need a change", which I believe essentially equates to one of the three reasons I did itemize. No one leaves a job for no reason.

All this being said, I have some concerns about some of this mentality, even though I can truly empathize with the reasoning behind it. First, all this ultimately comes down to what a company can do FOR ME. The self is the focus here, as is fairly instant gratification. This line of thinking absolutely permeates throughout our current societal social mores and worldviews. You buy a car no longer to get from here to there, but it's also the prestige of how the car makes you feel (if it's a high-end car), and the amount of luxury items in the car. Who doesn't want a GPS system, electrically controlled heated seats, electronic controlled seat adjustments, etc. This is all not for someone else's pleasure, but for your own. Once the car gets past a few years, it's time for an upgrade. Of course, most times, these cars are leased, so it's not like people are even making a commitment to pay the damn thing off first. It's the constant I need to have the latest this or that. That trickles into how we think of everything else in life, including our jobs. When the job stops "doing it for me", I will look for something else. Granted, few of us would go to our place of work and put in a day of work for free, but when we are there, we are thinking more of what we can get out of it rather than what we can put in. I've had these thoughts during my ten years here. But for me, I still think there is value in showing a level of commitment to a company which is paying you for doing your work, through the good times and the bad times. I'm glad that I stuck it out, since I would have missed out on many friendships/relationships and opportunities had I left. I remember in 1998/99, after our small company was swallowed by the big U.S.-based corporate behemoth, several senior technical directors got let go. One of the guys, who I highly respected technically but not as much so from a personal level, offered me a job with a company that he joined shortly after he was packaged out. I sat in with him and toured downtown facility with him and he offered me double my salary at that time. He offered me a very senior position where I can make many of the technology decisions independently. He took me out to lunch and gave me a full tour of the benefits and compensation package. I met the VP of the company. They were sold on the fact that they wanted me there. But I turned down the job. Yes, it was a lot of money, but again, there was something that I just couldn't put my finger on that made me uncomfortable. Anyhow, I didn't take the job, and they weren't happy. Within a year, that company was no more. I'm glad I stuck it out here.

I have been married for almost 10 years now. It will be 10 years next year, and both my wife and I are excited about the prospect of celebrating such a milestone. Marriage has been a lot of hard work, but well worth it. When you have two people who are uniquely different people making a covenant or promise or vow to one another to love each other and to support each other, even when life throws garbage at you, that is pretty serious stuff. It's easy for anyone to say the vows, but I think that keeping them is the challenge. As in any relationship, there is bound to be friction. If you don't agree with me here, you are either living a delusional existence, or more to the point, you are full of shit and in some serious denial. Almost everyone I know who is married or have close friends or family, will at one point bicker or fight with each other. The people who don't are hiding something. Ah...but you say that Christians should not disagree or argue or fight. Says who? Did you see Jesus and his disciples? The closest people to Him? The disciples argued with each other on a fairly regular basis. And even at times, Jesus became flustered with these guys for bickering amongst themselves. They were human. We are no different. I find it laughable to hear some Christians and non-Christians confidently state that they have never argued with their friends or their spouse or their family. I would question what level and the quality of the communication in which they engage in their relationship, not to mention their level of honesty.

My wife and I have argued and bickered and argued some more. Sometimes, we have done it publicly. But the key here is, we work things out. We spent years doing relationship book studies every Thursday night as a way for us to continually connect and communicate with each other, despite hectic work schedules and the added responsibility for caring for a child. The key here is that when times get tough, what does it say about your character when you decide to bail? While this is not the forum to discuss this, I am constantly shocked by how people seemingly hold Hollywood celebrities in such high esteem and follow their life ruminations, even though practically all of them have fractured or broken marriages. I think it should be illegal for celebrities to take marriage vows. This whole "irreconcilable differences" justification for divorce annoys me to no end. I don't believe there is such a thing; rather, it is a euphemism for giving up, not trying, throwing in the towel, waving the white flag, or whatever other cliche you wish to insert here. People just don't work on their relationships anymore. And why not? Because there are an army of unhappy people who are just waiting to flirt and jump in the sack with you, especially in today's age where people can set up discreet meetings over the internet and over email. One of my former managers was victimized this way when his wife cheated on him and he found out using technology to battle technology. In our consumeristic society, why bother working to fix something when you can just discard it and get something new. Sadly, marriages have become the ultimate thing to discard.

Look at our kids and our elderly. How many of these freaking "baby boomers" (and I emphasize the baby part) put their parents in nursing homes? This is something that seems to be ever-so-much-more common nowadays. Again, it's the whole "use and discard" mentality. The parents did their job, so I now put them into a home and the home will call me when they die. So sad. Rather than take in their parents and care for them (heaven forbid we actually think of someone else other than ourselves!), we pass them on to someone else. Sort of like...our kids. I am proud to say that my son has never had a primary caregiver other than his Mom, who stays at home with him - he's now in school. My wife and I made a decision - and a very hard one - to have her stay at home with him and set up a home business to supplement income. Sure, you may think, we could buy a bigger house and another car and boatloads of crap that we don't need if she worked outside the home and we put him in daycare, but again, we just don't share that mentality. Besides, I'd like to see where your kids are in 20 years, compared to my kids.

This lack of commitment mentality seeps into people's spirituality as well. Now, I am no spiritual giant, nor am I in any position to dispense spiritual guidance; however, I can say that I've talked with enough people who have questioned God's existence or His motives, based on what goes on in the world. Something bad happens - God is blamed. Something good happens - God is seldom mentioned. It's like people just can't take the bad with the good. Selective spirituality seems to be quite common. Of course, if you have a gander at the Bible, it makes no promises that the followers of Christ will have cushy lives. In fact, it indicates the direct opposite. Bad things likely will happen to you. People will dislike you. You will be hated - even by your own family! You may even pay the ultimate price and be put to death. But as the Bible states, that is the price of following Jesus, and the commitment that is required.

Whether is your job, your marriage, your kids or parents, or your faith, there is commitment required. If you don't step in with both feet, you'll simply be left looking for the next thing that will bring you a degree of satisfaction and purpose. Remember, in anything, there is always the ups and the downs, the good and the bad. There is a time for everything, as it says in the book of Ecclesiastes. The challenge for us, is...are we willing to accept the bad with the good, and hang in there when times get tough?

Fun Times With the Family

Well, it's been a pretty busy time lately, with us expecting, my wife's home business running, me working, and our son in school. We decided to take the day today as a "family day". We went out for breakfast together at Golden Griddle (delicious as always, and we were famished), followed by my wife taking a long nap while my son and I raced Hot Wheels cars on a homemade track/ramp. Then we went for a very long afternoon walk/hike into a local conservation area. It was a beautiful day - a little warm for a fall day, but walking through the nature trails with leaves crunching under foot and a slight breeze - albeit warm - was a tantalizing experience. We stopped off at the shore and skipped rocks. Unfortunately, I continue to have the distinction of being a person who has things happen to him that are typically against the odds - yesterday, while all three of us were skipping rocks, my wife said "here's a huge rock - check out this throw". I was standing right beside her and watched. Unfortunately, she must have slipped on the muddy shoreline because I went down like a sack of bricks, when I...yes, I who was standing directly beside her, was accidentally - or so the story goes, haha - nailed by that big rock that she was trying to skim. It hurt pretty bad, as I went down. My wife immediately came to my aid and after a few minutes I was able to recover, though I told her that I will pass on rock skipping for the rest of the afternoon.

If there is ever a good reminder of God's creating power, it is clearly evident when we go into nature. Some people hate the outdoors - I don't like man-made outdoor things like waterparks and crap like that - but I love going into the forest and finding a spot near the shore, or sitting on a low cliff and watching the water flow onto shore, while birds sing in the background and the leaves of trees rustle. It is truly relaxing, and not in a pantheistic new-age way.

We ended the day in a less-than-natural activity - having a mid-evening BBQ, where I bought a pack of Lick's burgers and threw them on the grill. Those things are fart and burp inducers like nothing else, but they are so damn delicious. When our son had gone to bed (which is a bit of a disconcerting experience these days, since he is wetting his bed regularly in the middle of the night - another topic for another time), we made a couple of cups of coffee and watched some videos that I had purchased on the cheap at the local store. Actually, we watched one (Alpha Dog - which wasn't our cup of tea in the least) - the other - The Last King of Scotland - we watched the night before.

Cashing in On Political Correctness

So I'm reading the newspaper this morning after making pancakes for our son, and I'm seeing that author J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series of books, has indicated that one of the characters, Dumbledore (sp.) is gay. I'm not a fan of the Harry Potter series (and it's not just because of the witchcraft and magic in the book - yes, I have read at least one of the books in the series) - I just don't find that they are all that well written - there are lots of authors in that magic/fantasy genre that write more stimulating books. Perhaps I am not reading it from a child's perspective, who knows.

Now, I am befuddled in terms of why such an announcement needs to be made. There is nothing implicit or explicit in the book about this guy's sexual orientation, and in fact, most kids' books don't really get into a lot of complex relational issues (except for prince and princess living happily ever after - notice it does not elaborate by saying that they are having wild sex in the castle on a regular basis). No one ever even remotely questioned the living arrangements between Ernie and Bert until they became adults and started analyzing in this way. I've always seen Ernie and Bert as friends who occasionally annoy the hell out of each other - but I've never once thought that they could be gay, until someone else mentioned it when I was in my early 20s. I think for children, stuff like that does not need to be introduced to them. So I think Rowling is doing a huge disservice to parents, who now are forced to explain homosexuality to their kids, since their children will inevitably ask (since news of Dumbledore's gayness is now considered breaking global news).

But for me, even though I am a staunch opponent of homosexual relationships, the deeper issue has to do with why Rowling made this revelation. Since the books don't mention it in any way, it's kind of strange that she would introduce this tidbit of information. I suspect it's because of the fact that being gay seems to be in vogue, or, shockingly, considered cool. You see celebrities, politicians, athletes, and others with more visibility purporting to champion homosexual relationships. Even some historically conservative talk show hosts have joined on the pro-gay (or neutral-gay) bandwagon by taking more of a libertarian stance of such things. It does not seem terribly kosher to speak out against anything homosexual, but since I've never been one to give a rat's ass about what people think about my opinions, I'll continue to proudly proclaim that I will never accept homosexuality as a lifestyle. Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked here. I think Rowling is trying to cash in on the gay-friendly trends happening in today's world, but making such a revelation. If she was writing an adult (non-kids) novel and wanted to out a character, I'd have no problem with that - that's her choice. However, when you have impressionable children reading your books and you introduce such a complex issue (and I believe it is complex, unlike other issues like death and betrayal, etc.), it will not only cause children to be confused, but it will likely cause them to be at odds with many of their parents (trust me, not everyone accepts homosexuality). If she did not want Dumbledore to be a heterosexual, she could have simply made him an asexual being, like so many supporting characters in children's books - no one ever wonders about their life outside of the main plotline. Children live in a pretty confusing world as-is. Despite what some parents who treat their little kids like adults may say, kids are still innocent, impressionable, and are in need of guidance. They don't need to be exposed to all the life complexities at such an early age.

Preach On, Bill Cosby

I have always liked Bill Cosby. Even back to when I was a kid, listening to cassette tapes of his comedy routines. Reading his books. Watching the Cosby Show. Watching him speak in interviews. Not only does he carry himself very well in public, but unlike some conservatives, he is not putting on a front. He does get mad. He does say provocative things, and sometimes it may go overboard. But he calls it like it is, and tries to do so in an educated, insightful manner.

The one single thing I admire about Bill Cosby is his willingness to rightfully critique the growing problem of fatherless children amongst the black community, as well as the large amount of black males in prison. Having an educational background that included a Doctorate in Education (that wasn't honourary, although he has received plenty of honourary degrees since), he is well versed as a voice of authority in order to tackle the issue of black crime, absentee fathers, gangs, etc. Cosby, while espousing family values indirectly through his criticism, is not as cocky as other conservatives who seem to wear the label with pride and draw seemingly undue attention to their views, until they fall in some scandal. Cosby practices what he preaches. He's been married to his wife for 40+ years, and for an entertainer in Hollywood to have achieved that, that's worth mentioning.

Cosby also champions the notion that families, whether black, white, Asian, or otherwise, cannot fully realize their potential unless two parents are present - and by two parents, he means a man and a woman - married, not common-law. I find his views on how the high black juvenile delinqency rate and high single mother rate can be attributed directly to the fact that responsibility and discipline are not taught in a married father and mother home, to be quite refreshing. Especially in this day and age where you have supposed "black leaders" who simply run off at the mouth (read: Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton) who make up every freaking excuse as to why blacks have a higher incidence of out-of-wedlock births and being in jail per capita than whites or anyone else. Cosby has been criticized for betraying his race or the more insulting label, being called an Uncle Tom. But he presses on, silencing his critics by simply speaking the truth. It is hard to argue with the truth.

I heard Dr. Cosby on a radio show today, where he lightly promoted his new book, but moreover, spent considerable amounts of time analyzing the psychology behind why a disproportionate amount of young blacks turn to crime at an early age, or join a gang. I think he hit the nail on the head when he talks about the disintegration of the family unit as a means to support these kids. While this is nothing new to me, it's great to hear Black folks who have some prominence either in entertainment or politics state the obvious common sense view. I know J.C. Watts, a prominent Black Republican congressman in the U.S., who espouses similar views, gets a lot of flak from others (mostly liberal Blacks who call him all sorts of names)
, but he has it right as well. Stop playing the victim card, but instead, move above your circumstances and take responsibility for your actions. By no means is this targeted strictly towards the Black community, but also for Whites, Latinos, Asians, Indians, etc., though the Black community obviously has a serious problem with maintaining stable family structure, when 70% of Blacks are born to single mothers. Sometimes what is needed is for someone to tell you some bad news about yourself, even if you don't want to hear it. Kudos to Dr. Cosby for speaking the truth.

Ontario Election 2007 - The Aftermath

I am on vacation today, which is good, since I need to take my wife to the OB/GYN for the latest ultrasound. Thankfully, all is well. I am also glad to be off today, since it gives me some time to recuperate after a grueling night of watching election coverage. By now, I'm sure everyone knows that the governing Liberals under Dalton McGuinty, won a second majority government. Though I don't have cable TV, I did manage to tune in, using my RCA rabbit ears, to the free CTV broadcast (which was so-so, as they spent more time cutting people off to show the CTV and election logo and summarize the results) where for about the initial ten minutes, it looked like a neck and neck race until the Liberals took off with it, and less than half-an-hour later, it was predicted that they would win. I still stay tuned to watch some of the close riding races (my riding was not close at all, but I didn't expect a different outcome since our local conservative candidate sucked in his campaigning strategy - I still voted for him anyway, since there was not a chance in hell that I was about to vote Liberal or NDP (the Family Coalition party was a distant alternative, but the candidate was still in college, so I didn't think he was very qualified).

I have to say that despite what has been reported in the news and what not, I don't believe John Tory hanged himself in this election, with the school funding issue as his convenient noose . While I may disagree with Tory on that one issue (I not only believe that the government should not fund other faith-based schools, but I am rabidly opposed to the current funding of Roman Catholic schools - it absolutely does not make any sense why RC schools are currently funded by the provincial government). Anyway, I believe what did Tory in is the apathy of the Ontario voters. I don't think the general electorate gave a rat's ass about who they wanted as Premier and who they wanted as the governing party. If you look at the record-low turnout for the election, you can see that people just didn't care. McGuinty will spin it as such that he was the clear choice and people voted for more of the same. But just like the many broken promises McGuinty has delivered, after a while, people seem to see all politicians the same - promise breakers, who may be idealistic before taking power, but are tyrants upon seizing control of the legislature. Perhaps some of this affected Tory as people saw him as flip-flopping on the schools issue, but I think it has more to do with the fact that people voted just to keep things the same. People naturally don't like change, unless there is something that directly impacts them. Also, people view the Liberals as a middle-ground, so while not perfect, the perception is that they are better than the right-of-centre party and the left-of-centre party.

If you also look at the MMP (mixed member proportion) referendum, you can see some parallels. It was widely defeated (and I'm glad it was, since it's not the solution in election reform - I don't like first-past-the-post either, but I dislike MMP even more. It was conceded by many that a big reason why MMP failed is because people were not sure what it was. My wife read all of the literature and still had a hard time with it. I admit, it is confusing for most non-followers of politics. So people just stayed on the safe side and voted for the existing system as it is (which has its own inherent problems).

I really respect the fact that this morning, of all the party leaders, only John Tory was gracious enough to afford TV and radio interviews, probably after a long night with little sleep. That's just how the guy works. He lost the Toronto mayoral election in 2003 or so, and even in losing, he made deliberate efforts to help his oppoents (including the winner) pay off their campaign debts. Some people say that John Tory is not electable because he's too nice of a guy. Others will say that he is too principled and not sleazy enough to schmooze with the political power brokers. Others will also say that he is not as socially conservative to woo the ultra right wingers like me. I don't agree with any of the above points. I think that John Tory did nothing wrong to lose the election last night. Rather, it came down to voters who just didn't care anymore about raising the bar and voting in someone with integrity and character. Complacency is the deal of the day and sadly, that is nothing new in Ontario.

Nothing Wrong With Two-Tier Health Care

In Canada, we have what is generally considered to be one of the best public health card systems in the world. The fact that people don't have to pay for things like child birth, most medical surgeries, etc. is definitely a big plus. Which is why I don't quite understand how critics of the health care system can complain about long wait times at hospitals and not enough funding for the the medical professions and not enough incentive for doctors to stay in Canada, yet at the same time are rabidly against instilling a two-tier health care system whereby those who have the means to pay for it can do so. Aside from being a hot topic of discussion in the current provincial election, this topic recently came to light when our former Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, last week was about to speak at a...well, speaking engagement, when he complained he wasn't feeling well. Within 20 hours, he was on an operating table, receiving quadruple heart bypass surgery.

This is, of course, a turnaround time that most citizens would never see for themselves, so people started grumbling about how unfair it is. The critics generally state that this creates an inequality between social classes, whereby the poor and lower income citizens cannot afford expedited care. Primarily impacted as well are senior citizens who are on fixed incomes and are generally in need of more care than their younger citizenry. By offering the choice to pay for faster health services, you are in essence catering to the wealthy who can then get faster treatment and diagnosis.

Please don't tell me that this is any surprise to you, or that your idealistic morals have been wounded greatly. This is the way it's always been. People who have money can buy faster and better service. Those than cannot afford it simply find other ways to manage. I cannot afford a full time maid or a full time butler, so guess what? I cook my own food (or depend on my wife to do so whenever opportunity arises) and I wash my own clothes and clean my own house (or depend on my wife to do so whenever opportunity arises). My wife is pregnant now, so I spent considerably more time with household chores. It is now 1:11AM on a Saturday night/Sunday morning, and I just finished cleaning the kitchen. Do you see me bitching and griping that it is unfair that I don't have the same access to a butler or a maid, that tony people have? No....

OK, so perhaps I am doing the proverbial apples-to-oranges comparison. Domestic services are unlike health care services, but the same principle applies. Before my son was born, I had the option of taking a semi-private room or a private room. I knew that the private room cost extra, but I didn't care - I didn't mind paying the extra. If I couldn't afford it or didn't want a private room (the reasons for which I cannot imagine), I simply would take the standard room offering. This is not a communist country, thank God, so no, not everyone and everything should be treated the same, despite what the socialist politicians would like you to think. You don't have to like everything and you certainly don't have to like everyone.

Would I use two-tier health care? Damn right I would. If I need to pay at a private hospital so that my sick son or wife doesn't need to wait for 3 hours just to get out of the waiting room and and another 3 hours in a room, I certainly would do that. Besides, think about it - by people opting to use private hospitals and private doctors, what would end up happening? The crowded waiting rooms at public hospitals would be alleviated. There would actually be LESS waiting at these hospitals and as a result of a number of people going to the private hospitals.

OK, but what about the seniors? And their fixed income problem? It's not fair that they should be forced to wait when they need care the most, but at the same time, a number of them cannot afford to pay for private services. In general, I know that there are such cases, but with private hospitals functioning, again they would likely get faster service as a result of less people at the public hospitals. It can't be any worse than it is now. But I want to address one more touchy issue when it comes to seniors and their state of affairs.

I find it absolutely appalling that so many people nowadays are putting their elderly parents into nursing homes and hospital facilities. I suspect that part of the reason that seniors don't have much money (aside from being on a fixed retirement income) is because they have ungrateful children who seemed to forget about what their parents did for them, so when their parents got older, they do what so many people do these days: consume and discard. That is, children consume their parents resources and then when they are independent, they somehow develop this "to hell with my parents" mentality and put them in a nursing home or a hospital to rot, rather than financially support them, but more importantly, physically and mentally support them. This may be more of a North American phenomenon, but it's still sad and disturbing. Their middle-aged kids will bitch about the health care system not working for their parents; meanwhile, they haven't done much to contribute to bettering their parents' twilight years. Instead, they focus on travel, their kids, their careers...it's pretty sad, actually. I have to say that one aspect of Asian culture that I really respect is the familial responsibility of children to parents - which is why you see so many Grandmas and Grandpas living with their adult kids. The grown up children have their own kids to rear, but they don't think twice about reciprocating the love and care their own parents gave to them. Unfortunately, many North Americans have short memories. I would never, ever put my parents in a nursing home or expect the health care system to take care of them. If the time ever comes, I'd be ready to have them move in with us, and I'd have no problems with being a full-time caregiver.

Back to two-tier health care - I've read some arguments that if you bring on a private medical system, that will put more pressure on the public system. Yes, it will. And there is nothing wrong with some much needed competition for patients. That is good for doctors and it is good for patients. Right now, especially in Ontario, where we really have a monopoly of health services by the private system - there may be a doctor and nurse shortage, but I believe that to be slightly exaggerated. Part of making patients wait is because there is no incentive to expedite the service. There is no competition.

Finally, some have maintained that a competing private system will usurp all the best doctors and nurses from the public system. Again, tell me something that I don't already know. Just like having a public defender represent you, versus having a big Bay street law firm to represent you - we're talking different leagues here. Professionals, including doctors and nurses, no matter idealistic, will generally gravitate towards a system where their services, skill, and expertise will be rewarded, financially and otherwise. No different than seeing that the best, very handsomely paid chefs are at the fancy schmancy dining establishments; meanwhile, your friendly neighbourhood burger flipper likely does not even know what constitutes a diploma in culinary cuisine. Or being driven around by a professionally trained, well-mannered limo driver as opposed to a fellow in a turban who barely speaks English, driving you around in a taxi, while flipping the bird to everyone he cuts off in traffic. If you want to have better service, you're going to have to pay for it. It's always been this way, it will always be this way.

I'm Getting Old

So yesterday I left work rather quickly, since my wife needed the car for the evening for a meeting which was one of those mandatory workshop type of things. I also needed to carry a rather large box (actually it was very large - it was empty, but I needed it to ship a 160-pound server) back to the car. Since last month, I started parking underground at a condo complex about a 5 minute walk from work. I decided to park there as it was on the way home, rather than the other spot at which I used to park, which was 10 minutes the other way. So here I am lugging this big huge box down the stairs of the parking garage and I get to my parking level and walk to my car.

My car was not there.

My first reaction was panic. I only parked here for a month! They promised 24-hour-security, and keycard controlled access to each level, and more! For what I'm paying to park there each month, I expected the "more" portion. Needless to say, I was quite irritated. Just to make sure that I didn't park at the wrong level, I took the stroll down to the level below me via the stairwell, and checked (somehow my keycard worked for that level as well). All the while, walking around with my rather large box (something in which you can probably fit Yo-Yo Ma's cello or whatever it is that he plays). People who parked their cars started looking at me funny, especially the fact that I may have looked rather suspicious, walking around a parking garage in a confused state, carrying a big empty box around, all the while looking left and looking right and turning around and walking some more. I also had on my green army jacket and black ball cap, so I'm sure I didn't look like a traveling businessman who was lost.

When I was convinced that I had not mistakenly parked my car (I mean, come on now, I am not senile here), I went back to the main level and called the person who manages parking for that condo. Unfortunately, my cell phone, of all the times for it to be running extremely low on batteries, had to choose that afternoon to deplete itself of power. I advised the manager lady that I was low on battery and she put me on hold *sigh* and said she she'll call me back, once she checks with security. A few moments later after checking the garage again, lugging this big server box all the while, she calls me back and leaves a VM (which drains the battery even more, since I now have to go through the rigamarole of doing several key sequence presses) and indicates that she had a chat with security and they did not call a tow truck to tow my car.

I was exasperated. I responded to her, "well then, it's obviously stolen then. So much for your 24 hour security!" I probably should not have added that last part, as I am sure it wasn't terribly helpful information, but you know - you get frustrated and say stupid things. She suggested that I call the police, and I did, but not before calling my wife to inform her that our beloved Nissan Sentra has fallen into the hands of people with questionable personal integrity and ethics. My wife said that she will call her co-ordinator to advise her of the situation.

The cops showed up and I gave them the whole story. They thought it was strange that a private parking spot was somehow compromised and no one knew about it, especially given that the private parking floor has keyed controls to get in. They said they will talk to the security desk to see if they can get some camera views to see who may have taken the car, but in the meantime, they wanted to confirm that I didn't park on the wrong floor. I was flustered, and told them that I checked the floor below me and no I did not park on the wrong floor. They asked if I checked the floor above me and I told them I didn't need to since it looks totally different than my floor and there was no way I'd mistakenly park there. If nothing else, IF I was foolish and senile enough to park somewhere else, it would have been on the floor below me, which was an exact replica of my floor.

They also asked me why I was carrying an empty box around with me, the size of half a refrigerator. I told him that I needed it to ship out something though I mistakenly did not tell him what it was (I wonder whether he thought I was an arms dealer, given my otherwise military jacket). I can tell he regarded my story as fishy, even though it was the truth. I'm willing to bet at that point, he wondered whether I actually had a missing car.

You know cops - being cops, they wanted to be thorough, so they said, "jump in the cruiser and let's check the floors". So I did, after putting the box snugly into his cruiser's trunk, and inhaled the smells from the backseat of what I was sure to have been from many suspects who were inebriated or otherwise. The first floor that they visited was floor number two, directly above my parking floor. "Where do your normally park, sir?" he asked. I indicated by my hand gesture that it was "over there", at which point he drove in that direction towards a little black dot in the distance.

At that point, I started to curse in my mind, since I knew what was coming next. I had some serious backtracking and apologizing to do, and I knew that I would need to implement them within a few seconds. However, the officer beat me to the punch. "Sir, is that your car?" he said, knowing full well it was, since it was the only damn car in that area at that time of day. "Uh, yeah..." I said, and proceeded to start regurgitating apology after apology.

"I'm really sorry, officer...but I thought..."

"I am not sure what happened here"

"I'm so sorry for the inconvenience..."

"I feel like an idiot here..."

"Haha...I must be getting old"

I suspect that, based on his facial demeanour, he neither found any solace or humour in my attempts to apologize for wasting his time. However, as a true professional, charged to serve and protect, he kept his mouth shut, and dropped me off at my car, with only a statement of "you'll want to check the other floors next time." I wasn't about to argue, so I nodded in agreement and once again apologized. He then drove back towards the ramp, heading back to the security desk to pick up his partner, for what I am sure, will be an expletive-laced conversation on the way back to the station or their next destination.

Crosman T4 .177 Caliber Repeater Airgun Review

I've been on some airgun forums lately, where people have asked about the Crosman T4. If you do a search of the internet, there are very few extensive reviews on the pistol. So I thought I'd do people a favour and write up a short little blurb about this glock replica. If you have any questions on the pistol, feel free to email me or post your question here.

The Crosman T4 is more or less modelled after the 1088 series. There are two flavours of the T4 - standalone or OPs. The OPs come with some additional tactical accessories, and naturally, carries a heftier price tag. Since I don't own an OPs, I'll just review the basic T4.

Based on my limited, and often-failing memory, the T4 kit includes shooting glasses, a 250-tin of wadcutter pellets, a couple of CO2 canisters, and some paper targets. The T4 also comes with two (2) 8-round clips, and will shoot 177 caliber pellets OR BBs (oh yeah, the kit also comes with a small baggie of steel BBs). Do not use airsoft ammo for this. For safety, the T4 kit comes with a cross-bolt safety switch, as well as a keyed trigger-guard safety mechanism (just like anything else, don't rely on these alone for your safety). I believe the velocity on the .177 pellets is something like 430, while the BBs are around 460.

The first thing that impressed me about the T4, even before I tried it out, is the look. It looks like a cool pistol, unlike many of the airguns out there, which may perform well and may even be used in official olympic match competitions, but look rather lame. It has a reasonably good resemblance to a glock pistol (don't brandish it in public, just like any other airgun), and despite what people say, how the pistol looks has an impact on your mindset when you take it to the range or wherever. Try taking those silly airsoft guns that are clear (the ones with the orange tip at the end) to any range - even if it shoots 1000FPS, you'll have a hard time taking it seriously. Anyhow, the CO2 canister for the T4 is inserted via the back of the grips (butt of the gun), which flip outward toward you. You insert the canister and then close the grips. Now, this next part I am unsure of, but either the canister is punctured when you close the grips or when you fire the pistol. A number of people have tried to convince me of the latter, but I believe it is the former, because if you don't quite close the back handle properly, you will start hearing the CO2 leak. Maybe I just did it wrong, who knows.

You pre-load your pellets or BBs (do not mix and match) into the 8-round magazine, push down the lever on the left side of the slide to engage the loading port, and then literally drop the magazine in the port with the ratchet side facing forward, and hope for the best. This brings me to my first issue with the T4 - the silly loading mechanism, and its subsequent problems. The T4 that I bought had problems right at the outset with pellets intermittently (I should say regularly, since it's more around 75-80% of the time) being jammed in the magazine and not firing. I consulted an enthusiast in the U.S. who also have owned numerous 1088s and T4s and he told me that the T4 has a problem with indexing, due to the nature of how the rounds are loaded. Basically, because the magazine is dropped in the port, there may be misalignment problems. As a result, when the magazine spins, the pellet is not quite lined up with the barrel and subsequently will hit the inside of the barrel and go back into the magazine. I found this to be the case, as upon opening up the loading port and removing the magazine, I saw nicks and depressions on the pellets - not only were they wasted, but it also wasted the CO2 as well as potentially damaging your gun long term. After owning the T4 for only a month or so, I had it shipped back to Crosman Canada for a replacement. To Crosman's credit, they not only replaced the pistol, but gave me a brand new pistol kit (it is completely plastic sealed, like many things you find at CostCo - you need scissors to open up the package). The replacement T4 no longer had the indexing problem, but right away, the lever that opens up the loading port no longer works (it gets jammed, though I can alternately open the loading port but pulling back the slide with one hand, while I push the lever down with the other - it's annoying but I'd prefer this problem over the indexing one). I'd send it back to Crosman, but I don't want to get a replacement gun that has the indexing problem.

As for CO2 life. It is very disappointing. For a 12 gram canister, I get maybe 25 - 30 shots. Which is absolutely terrible considering the fact that the 2240 can take about 40-60 shots before the CO2 is expended. It may be a leak in the T4s seals, but I've heard others who have mentioned the same thing, so I would imagine it's by design.

Performance. Well, I knew when I got it, that it did not have a rifled barrel, so I wasn't expecting great results. I don't measure groupings, so I can't comment, but I can say that with open sights, it was pretty bad. Thankfully, I was at a range that had backstops and what not. There is a manually adjustable rear sight, but I don't think that makes a difference, and it's not me, because I shoot much better with a 2240, or a Walther CP Sport. I haven't tried the BBs yet, and have no desire to do so, since I'm only interested in target shooting and the wadcutters are great to use for that.

The pistol feels very plasticky (because it is) and is heavier than your average air pistol. The feel of the grips is OK, but not great.

Overall, I was disappointed in the pistol. Crosman has produced better guns at less cost. While the pistol looked cool, some of the issues with it eroded the asethetically pleasing initial impressions. For a beginner plinker, it may be fine, but if you want to get better with your target shooting, you'll probably want to look at another product.