This past year, I worked with a new fella in my office, who I found out later, owned an airgun. This, I would consider unusual in the very liberal Toronto, and especially in a white-collar industry like IT, where opinions, just like the technology are considered and even expected, to be progressive. You can imagine how much I stick out like a sore thumb, and being an Asian gun enthusiast as well, which nowadays is pretty rare. There are less than a handful of people on my whole account (and customer site) who own any type of gun, much less holds a firearms licence. So it always intrigues me to meet people who have even a passing interest in guns.
This guy I worked with happened to own a similar airgun as one of the many that I own. He owned a Walther CP Sport. I have since sold mine, but I have a review on this blog, so check it out if you are interested in this gun. But anyway, it's a CO2-powered semi-automatic .177 caliber air pistol. It's also one of more weaker airguns out there, shooting at a maximum of 360FPS, which, I will concede, is not as weak as airsoft, but don't expect it to be a pest control gun.
My colleague, keeping his voice low, shared with me that he bought the airgun with the sole purpose of using it as a self-defence weapon. When I heard him say that I was shocked. I asked him how many guns he owns, and he said just that one. He said that he thought it was pretty powerful. I asked him if he had any idea what the impact of a .177 caliber pellet at 360FPS (maximum) would be? He didn't, so I gave him some perspective. The Canadian firearms classification starts with fired projectiles travelling at 500FPS or higher AND generating more than 4.2FPE (foot pounds energy). You cannot even humanely kill or even injure a squirrel with a 450FPS airgun (a small mouse, yes, but nothing larger). So don't expect to take down a home invader.
It has been said that part of the Canadian government's classification numbers may have to do with the penetrating effect of a projectile, given a certain velocity and transfer of energy. I have never heard this officially substantiated by the Canadian Firearms Centre, but it does make some sense, in terms of how to classify something as a firearm (ie. can it cause serious or lethal injury).
I gave him some more perspective - a CO2 semi-automatic may sound cool, with rapid fire and an eight-shot magazine, but as anyone who knows anything about airguns can attest, the faster you fire a CO2 gun, the more velocity you lose on subsequent shots - it's because of the cold gas that is released by the CO2 cartridge everytime you pull the trigger. A colder environment inside the gun makes a pellet go slower (another knock against CO2 guns being used in the wintertime). So that maximum 360FPS will turn out to be in the mid-200 to 250FPS, which will cause a slight bruise for someone running around naked, but will hardly penetrate thick clothing, much less skin. If nothing else, your home invader or bad guy will simply get irritated at the fact that you're trying to shoot him and now it gives him the licence to exact maximum injury on you, now that he knows you don't have a "real gun". My friend said that the replica nature of the CP Sport may be a deterrent enough. Personally, I wouldn't put my life on the line for a possibility.
Finally, I shared with him the fact that the most powerful airgun I own is the Gamo Viper Express .22 Caliber Air Shotgun / Rifle combo. This gun requires a firearms licence, and shoots either a very limited of #9 lead shot at around 1200FPS (maximum) or with an chamber adapter, shoots .22 caliber pellets at 850FPS (maximum). Remember, a heavier pellet like a .22 will impart much more energy on impact than its smaller counterpart, at the same velocity. All that being said, despite the fact that the Viper Express is a firearms-rated airgun, I would not recommend anyone to use it for self-defence. The power is just not there. Some self-defence experts would even contend that the lower-velocity rimfire type of firearms are inadquate for self-defence, despite the fact that they will shoot a .22 caliber bullet at generally over 1000FPS. In my view, where you can maybe come close is having something like a Ruger 10/22 with a Butler Creek 25-mag, full of CCI .22 LR Stingers. Those will shoot over 1600FPS, but their accuracy suffers. But problem with using anything rimfire is that likely you will need more than one shot, and that's going to be hard to explain to the cops why you shot the bad guy full of holes.
Some have said that having something is better than nothing, but I disagree. Having nothing at least poses no resistance to the perp, and unless he's hellbent on killing or raping you, it may be in your best interest to simply let him take whatever he wants. Now, I know home invasions don't always work that way, but imagine this - you are stumbling in the dark, reaching for your airgun, hoping that the CO2 still will carry at least 8 shots. Even if you get your shot off, you are looking at reduced stopping power for subsequent CO2 shots. That is the nature of a CO2 gun. You will need a lot more than one shot to stop the intruder, and so a CO2 airgun is a really poor choice, even a CO2 repeating air rifle that requires a firearms licence. In essence, with airguns you are stuck with several problems: 1) multiple shots are needed, but the effect of subsequent shots make it useless on a CO2 gun, 2) there is no no-CO2 repeating airgun, and 3) you definitely don't want to rely on something that is single-shot, spring-action or break-barrel.
Now, the one caveat here - an airgun can be used IF you are such a good shot that you can hit the bad guy in the eye every time. Most airguns will rupture an eyeball without much difficulty, but getting to the point where you can take out an eye is a pretty gruesome thought, and given the fact that the conditions in which you may actually have to do this are less than ideal (low light conditions, time of night and exhaustion issues, movement and space issues, not to mention the fact that you're likely crapping your pants at the time), it's probably more pie-in-the-sky thinking than anything else.
Have airguns ever been used successfully to ward off an attacker? Probably. In fact, I know of a case in South America where a guy was able to chase away a bad guy by shooting him with a relatively low-powered airgun. But remember, if you put all your eggs in one basket with exceptional-case scenarios such as this, you are not looking at the possibility that there are many criminals who aren't so easily chased away. Remember, the criminal mind does not think long-term. Some criminals will kill you for looking at them the wrong way. Don't assume that you'll be able to scare off or chase off most criminals. If they are indeed packing heat, then you pulling out an airgun has just authorized them to shoot you with a real gun in supposed self-defence. Do you want to take this chance?
I have heard of people who still believe airguns are worth using as self-defence and will alter their airguns so that they are multiple times more powerful. Personally, I think these people are playing with fire, since doing this is not only illegal, but can likely get your arrested, since if you alter an air pistol to shoot over 500FPS, you are now looking at a restricted or even a prohibited weapon, according to Canada's fiearms classifications. Very likely the gun will not even be classifiable, since it wasn't manufactured that way and registered with the Canadian government. But let's hypothesize that it was legal to do this (which it definitely is not, I want to emphasize). I still don't believe an airgun shooting a .22 CAL pellet at around 16.2 grains, at a velocity of 500-1000FPS is suitable. Remember, rimfire .22 bullets are around 32 or 40 grain, go at least 1000FPS in general, and I (and others) do not consider them to be viable for self-defence.
Then there are the obvious legal issues. Now, I have previously said that if you are planning to have anything for self-defence, that you had better be prepared to use it to STOP the bad guy, only in situations where you fear for your life or the life of a loved one. Never shoot to kill - your intention should not be pre-meditated killing. Shooting someone for stealing your TV is not excuseable. That being said, the ability to stop the bad guy is not so much determined by your skill level or shooting ability than by what you choose as your self-defence weapon. As I already mentioned, I do not believe airguns to be sufficient. In my humble opinion, the best home defence weapon (for reasons beyond the scope of this blog entry, though I write about this elsewhere on this blog) is a 12 or 20-gauge pump action shotgun, that you can quickly load with something like #3 buckshot, or lower. Be forewarned though - this is a very lethal combination and if you plan to use this, be prepared to accept responsibility for your actions.
In Canada, specifically, buying arms for self-defence is frowned upon, and discouraged. Reason is, unlike the U.S., there are stringent safe-storage laws in Canada. So a person who has any type of firearm in Canada is legally required to keep them unloaded, and locked up in a suitable gun cabinet or safe. The ammo also needs to be locked up separately. Now, think about this - given these legal requirements, how likely is it that you can have a fully functional ready-to-go self-defence arm? If you happen to be very fast and can get to all these individual components, unlocking / relocking and loading your arm all within the span of a couple of minutes, the Canadian government can charge you with unsafe storage, no matter what you say otherwise (their argument is that the laws make it virtually impossible to get to your gun for self-defence, so there's no way you should have been able to do it unless you weren't following safe storage laws). Moreover, if you end up shooting someone, even in a justified self-defence response, and they somehow manage to live, be prepared to be tried as a criminal and having your firearms confiscated as a result, even though you're the one who was violated. Sad, isn't it. Welcome to Canada.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Did Colin Powell Endorse Barack Obama Because He Is Black?
I find it a bit interesting, but hardly surprising that former Secretary of State Republican Colin Powell recently gave his endorsement o Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. He has confirmed what I have thought all along.
In general, Black people, at least in the U.S., tend to stick together.
Don't believe me? I've been thinking this for a long time now, even before the primary season started. During the Democratic primaries, it proved my point - there are States that Obama won, primarily due to the overwhelming (and I mean overwhelming - like 90% or higher) support of the Black electorate. Poor Hillary Clinton - sure, Bill was popular amongst Black voters, but what other alternatives were there? It's pretty much been White males ever since we could remember.
I suppose one can argue that Blacks generally vote Democrats, so it is coincidental that Obama, a half-Black man, is garnering all this support from the "Black community." Maybe. Plus the true test would have been to see what would have happened had, let's say, some serious Black, well known Republicans like Condoleeza Rice, or better yet, a person I highly hope is on the Republican ticket in the future, Alan Keyes, was on the current Republican ticket, and say, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards (well, not anymore) would have been the Democratic nominee. I am willing to bet that Rice or Keyes would capture a lot of the traditional Democratic vote.
Come to this another way, consider the following - can you think of any Blacks who are vehemently supporting McCain? As you may know, I am Asian, and I tell you, I get lots of weird looks as I wear my McCain / Palin shirt, hat, button, or whatever else I decide to don outside the house. I think that people have this really bad impression (fueled by the pro-Obama media) that minorities are supposed to go to Obama. But of course, you're thinking with your feelings here and not with your head. It is the same stupidity that causes White people to reject a qualified Black candidate solely due to race. I know it happens. But Blacks are now doing the exact same thing in supporting Obama, but the difference is, they don't admit it.
When Oprah Winfrey came out to support Obama, was anyone surprised? Here is a very liberal celebrity who, despite her supposed diverse viewership, still has more of a resonating effect among 1) women and 2) Blacks. Men usually don't give a rat's ass about what Oprah things, and they shouldn't (which should be said of most celebrities).
Rush Limbaugh got in supposed hot water for making these suggestions recently. People don't like Rush because he speaks his mind and speaks the truth - which of course, make the relativistic general populace not comfortable. He is right - when was the last time Powell endorsed an inexperienced White Democrat for anything? I suppose one can make an argument that Powell is just trying to screw over the Republicans who embarrassed him by forcing him to go to the U.N. with bad intelligence to push for the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Maybe this plays a factor, but I think that you can't overstate the race card. Powell is not exactly a young guy, and I'm sure as a Black Republican, has for many years felt out of place, or have felt the indignation of racial stigma and bigotry. I respect Powell for his military service as well as his contribution to the Republicans - but I think that he's letting the personal pride of seeing a "fellow brother" get elected get to him. A lot of people support Obama seemingly to be part of "history", that they can tell their grandchildren that they put the first Black president in office. A lot of the younger voters have fallen for the slick speeches and warm and fuzzy image of Obama, in today's media-frenzy environment where sound bytes and technological marvels dazzle - style over substance.
I also think these younger voters, as with many young people today, reject anything that is considered "old", including people. They don't view McCain as experienced, simply as old.
Back to the point here - I have lost count of how many interviews with Black voters I have read, or heard or seen, in which they say with such pride how they look forward to putting a Black man in office. Hey, don't get me wrong - I can understand the pride, especially when only 40-50 years ago, segregation still ran rampant. But is that really a good reason to vote for someone?
Proof that it's more about race and celebrity status - a U.S. poll amongst random Black voters asked certain questions such as, "do you agree with Obama's opposition to embryonic stem cell research." General answer was yes, even though the question is deliberally wrong factually. It also asks, "do you agree with Obama's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate?" General answer is yes. I mean, do people even read these things? I suspect not, but they see "support Obama" and they vote yes.
Now, one may suggest that it's not all about race here, since lots of Whites are voting for Obama. Very true, but you can't compare here, since we're talking specifically about the Black electorate. I think it would be much better to simply come out and say that they are voting that way because of his race, much like some McCain supporters are supporting McCain because he is White. Neither position is based on any amount of intelligence, but let's call a spade a spade here. Blacks want a Black president and will vote accordingly.
In general, Black people, at least in the U.S., tend to stick together.
Don't believe me? I've been thinking this for a long time now, even before the primary season started. During the Democratic primaries, it proved my point - there are States that Obama won, primarily due to the overwhelming (and I mean overwhelming - like 90% or higher) support of the Black electorate. Poor Hillary Clinton - sure, Bill was popular amongst Black voters, but what other alternatives were there? It's pretty much been White males ever since we could remember.
I suppose one can argue that Blacks generally vote Democrats, so it is coincidental that Obama, a half-Black man, is garnering all this support from the "Black community." Maybe. Plus the true test would have been to see what would have happened had, let's say, some serious Black, well known Republicans like Condoleeza Rice, or better yet, a person I highly hope is on the Republican ticket in the future, Alan Keyes, was on the current Republican ticket, and say, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards (well, not anymore) would have been the Democratic nominee. I am willing to bet that Rice or Keyes would capture a lot of the traditional Democratic vote.
Come to this another way, consider the following - can you think of any Blacks who are vehemently supporting McCain? As you may know, I am Asian, and I tell you, I get lots of weird looks as I wear my McCain / Palin shirt, hat, button, or whatever else I decide to don outside the house. I think that people have this really bad impression (fueled by the pro-Obama media) that minorities are supposed to go to Obama. But of course, you're thinking with your feelings here and not with your head. It is the same stupidity that causes White people to reject a qualified Black candidate solely due to race. I know it happens. But Blacks are now doing the exact same thing in supporting Obama, but the difference is, they don't admit it.
When Oprah Winfrey came out to support Obama, was anyone surprised? Here is a very liberal celebrity who, despite her supposed diverse viewership, still has more of a resonating effect among 1) women and 2) Blacks. Men usually don't give a rat's ass about what Oprah things, and they shouldn't (which should be said of most celebrities).
Rush Limbaugh got in supposed hot water for making these suggestions recently. People don't like Rush because he speaks his mind and speaks the truth - which of course, make the relativistic general populace not comfortable. He is right - when was the last time Powell endorsed an inexperienced White Democrat for anything? I suppose one can make an argument that Powell is just trying to screw over the Republicans who embarrassed him by forcing him to go to the U.N. with bad intelligence to push for the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Maybe this plays a factor, but I think that you can't overstate the race card. Powell is not exactly a young guy, and I'm sure as a Black Republican, has for many years felt out of place, or have felt the indignation of racial stigma and bigotry. I respect Powell for his military service as well as his contribution to the Republicans - but I think that he's letting the personal pride of seeing a "fellow brother" get elected get to him. A lot of people support Obama seemingly to be part of "history", that they can tell their grandchildren that they put the first Black president in office. A lot of the younger voters have fallen for the slick speeches and warm and fuzzy image of Obama, in today's media-frenzy environment where sound bytes and technological marvels dazzle - style over substance.
I also think these younger voters, as with many young people today, reject anything that is considered "old", including people. They don't view McCain as experienced, simply as old.
Back to the point here - I have lost count of how many interviews with Black voters I have read, or heard or seen, in which they say with such pride how they look forward to putting a Black man in office. Hey, don't get me wrong - I can understand the pride, especially when only 40-50 years ago, segregation still ran rampant. But is that really a good reason to vote for someone?
Proof that it's more about race and celebrity status - a U.S. poll amongst random Black voters asked certain questions such as, "do you agree with Obama's opposition to embryonic stem cell research." General answer was yes, even though the question is deliberally wrong factually. It also asks, "do you agree with Obama's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate?" General answer is yes. I mean, do people even read these things? I suspect not, but they see "support Obama" and they vote yes.
Now, one may suggest that it's not all about race here, since lots of Whites are voting for Obama. Very true, but you can't compare here, since we're talking specifically about the Black electorate. I think it would be much better to simply come out and say that they are voting that way because of his race, much like some McCain supporters are supporting McCain because he is White. Neither position is based on any amount of intelligence, but let's call a spade a spade here. Blacks want a Black president and will vote accordingly.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
I Don't Understand Why People Moderate Blog Comments. I Don't.
I recently was reading an article about a recent executed inmate in the U.S., Kevin Watts. This guy was convicted of shooting three Korean restaurant workers in the States point blank in the head while they were kneeing down, in a robbery that obviously became much worse. Then he raped one of the deceased's wife. He was convicted pretty easily and sentenced to death. He was executed this week.
There is a blogger website called "Death Penalty News". These people are your typical anti-capital punishment group, but they spend their time highlighting cases in which criminals get executed. Now, capital punishment is not the topic of discussion here, and I've already put in my two cents on this issue a little while back, but what really irked me about the "Death Pentalty News" website is the fact that while they allow comments, the comments are moderated (which is OK, I guess), but moreover, they succinctly state that any pro-death penalty comments will not be posted. I posted a blurb there that will never be published, but at least they got my two cents.
That is a pretty sad state of affairs when a person or group will only give one side of an issue. Even if you have your own belief system or philosophy, wouldn't it be better to allow no comments at all rather than just allow comments that are in line with their position?
You'll never get that here. I not only welcome divergent comments (and I've received a number of them here) from people who don't agree with me, but I don't moderate them either. I would expect that people would remain civil and use some degree of written word decorum. Makes sense, since I doubt anyone wants to read an expletive-laced tirade. A different viewpoint is always welcome, as long as it is seriously put forth. If I moderated blog entries by sheer philosophical or political position, what you are getting is only what I allow through, which makes the credibility of this whole blog suspect. Sure, I am very opinionated, and sure, you may not agree with me, but I support your right to voice an opinion, and I won't censor you as a result. I think by allowing free speech to flow here, it helps encourage discussion and debate and allows the different sides to put forth their positions. Plus, if you take the time to respond to any of my postings, then the least I can do is afford you the chance to be heard, whether you agree with me or not.
There is a blogger website called "Death Penalty News". These people are your typical anti-capital punishment group, but they spend their time highlighting cases in which criminals get executed. Now, capital punishment is not the topic of discussion here, and I've already put in my two cents on this issue a little while back, but what really irked me about the "Death Pentalty News" website is the fact that while they allow comments, the comments are moderated (which is OK, I guess), but moreover, they succinctly state that any pro-death penalty comments will not be posted. I posted a blurb there that will never be published, but at least they got my two cents.
That is a pretty sad state of affairs when a person or group will only give one side of an issue. Even if you have your own belief system or philosophy, wouldn't it be better to allow no comments at all rather than just allow comments that are in line with their position?
You'll never get that here. I not only welcome divergent comments (and I've received a number of them here) from people who don't agree with me, but I don't moderate them either. I would expect that people would remain civil and use some degree of written word decorum. Makes sense, since I doubt anyone wants to read an expletive-laced tirade. A different viewpoint is always welcome, as long as it is seriously put forth. If I moderated blog entries by sheer philosophical or political position, what you are getting is only what I allow through, which makes the credibility of this whole blog suspect. Sure, I am very opinionated, and sure, you may not agree with me, but I support your right to voice an opinion, and I won't censor you as a result. I think by allowing free speech to flow here, it helps encourage discussion and debate and allows the different sides to put forth their positions. Plus, if you take the time to respond to any of my postings, then the least I can do is afford you the chance to be heard, whether you agree with me or not.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Stephen Harper Wins Another Minority.
Well, well, well...Prime Minister Harper won another minority government tonight, and a stronger one at that (at this point, it's around 143 seats for the Conservatives). They needed 155 to win a majority, but 143 is not bad at all, considering they had something like 124 or 127 previous.
My local Conservative Party candidate did not win - he, unfortunately, got trounced by a former Liberal cabinet minister, who doesn't even live in this area, but that is neither here nor there. Voters in this area are so fickle. I was one of two people within visible walking distance who had election lawn signs up - in fact, I had two on my property. My neighbour, who is obviously of a different political stripe than myself, mocked me (jokingly - or was it?) about me voting Conservative, and I tell you, it was hard to bite my tongue and merely give him the fake neighbourly smile I've given him for the past eight years.
The left wingers are chiding the election results, suggesting that they won, as they denied Harper a majority government. This, in part, is from the same Liberal party that had its worst showing since like 1984, and not too far removed from a loss in 1867, the year of confederation. Personally, I think this is both a hollow and a weak argument. Harper's Conservatives have been voted in twice, with the second minority much stronger. Doesn't sound like a weak leader to me. What cost Harper is the uneven distribution of representation by population, and I'm talking about the province of Quebec here, which happened to vote in large numbers for the separatist Bloc Quebecois (as an aside, I must say how pleasantly surprised I am to see visible minority members in the Bloc - and I also have to confess that I've always thought Gilles Duceppe was a great character for the federal scene. Don't agree with much of his viewpoints, but I love his sense of humour). Anyhow, this country is still a fairly fragmented country when it comes to regional politics. Case in point - Atlantic Canada voted almost all Liberal, Quebec is mostly Bloc, Toronto is all Liberal and NDP, Alberta is mostly Conservative and BC is 99% Conservative representation. Not sure about Saskatchewan or Manitoba and the territories, and I'm too lazy to find out.
So what's a minority mean for Harper? Well, it still means he can't push through things without getting some sort of support from at least one other party. For instance, his commitment to end the federal long gun registry will simply have to sit on the back burner for another few years - I can't forsee any other party supporting it. Another thing that a minority does is essentially force a checks and balances type of political co-operation. I think it provides good balance in that you don't get one party (and consequently one political stripe) dominating the making of laws, government spending and support of programs, etc. I know, it may be hard to hear that coming from someone who people view as narrow minded and a one-party guy. But look at what has happened elsewhere, namely in the U.S. With a Democratic House, Senate and President, government spending goes out of control. Similarly, I am not in favour of all branches of government being dominated by the Republicans. Does that mean that I am in favour of a politically pluralistic makeup of a government? Not entirely, but I think it's important at least to ensure that divergent voices are heard, so it doesn't run like a dictatorship.
Did you watch any of the Canadian leaders' debates? I watched the French one (kind of hard to understand the translation as the translators were talking over one another - each candidate had its own translator dubbing in his/her voice, to make it look more like an exchange rather than single statements from one single voice that translates for all the candidates) as well as the English one. I personally did not like that round table format. It made interrupting more easily accomplishable, as the candidates were obviously sitting more in a casual environment, and as such, all natural debate decorum went out the window. Steve Paikin was an effective moderator, but the close proximity in which the candidates sat made it much more easier to talk over the moderator.
I really question what Elizabeth May was doing there. Sure, the Greens had one seat in the House (which incidentally was not an elected seat - just an elected MP that switched parties). Some people will chastise me for my criticism of May, accusing me of being sexist. Not at all. May's gender had nothing to do with my belief that she shouldn't have been there. Her lack of party members elected had something to do with it, but let's be honest - she was so damn annoying. Contrast this to former federal NDP leader Alexa McDonough. She belonged in the debates as the NDP had more than a few seats and she at least had some debating skills. May came across as loud-mouthed and obnoxious. Did you see the one part where she was just reaming on Harper and Harper gave her that smiling look, you know, the one he gives people when he's about to choke them. But he showed tremendous restraint in not reacting to May; as a result, she looked like an idiot talking to herself.
I guess if I were to think long about this, I would probably not support the BQ being on the debate either. Sure, they have around 50 seats, which is noticeable, but as they are not a national party, I'm not sure why they would be in the debates - at least spare them from the English one, since they don't speak English for anything. Notice how the rest of the leaders inject French in their speeches and remarks, whereas the BQ never does? Sometimes I think Quebec has Canada by the balls way too often, and it's time the federal government stop catering to a special interests.
Of course, the biggest consequence tonight will be what will happen to that hapless fellow Stephane Dion? He ran a pretty poor election, which I don't really mind, since I don't vote Liberal, but honestly - he had all the issues wrong. His "Green Shift" carbon tax plan no one really cared about at the end, especially when the economy was the prime focus. He also didn't spend too much time explaining the exact details of the Green Shift plan to the electorate, and that brings me up to another point - his English is REALLY BAD. Chretien had an accent, but you could make out what he was saying. Dion, being in federal politics for so long - I'm surprised that his English is not much better. Hard to show that you are a leader when your communication and linguistic skills are not up to snuff.
Which leads me to my last point that I sincerely believe that this is not only the first kick at the can for Dion, but it will for sure be his last. The Liberals, at current count, have around 76 seats - that's down from 95. The Conservatives and NDP picked up a number of seats, while the BQ stayed the same. The Liberals lost quite a few seats. And even if it wasn't Dion's fault entirely (I believe it was, for a large part), he is the current leader and so he needs to take the first arrows. My guess is that he'll resign in a few days, and then the vultures will gather around and prepare for the second iteration of the modern day Liberal convention. All I can say is...anyone but Michael Ignatieff. That guy is one of those "as slimy as they come" politicians. Dude hasn't live in Canada for 40 years, and now is back...and for what - trying to become Prime Minister? I'd much rather see Gerard Kennedy, and to a lesser extent, Bob Rae. Anyone but Ignatieff. But like I said, I don't really care, since I don't vote nor support the Grits anyways.
Do you have any thoughts on the election? Please share them here.
My local Conservative Party candidate did not win - he, unfortunately, got trounced by a former Liberal cabinet minister, who doesn't even live in this area, but that is neither here nor there. Voters in this area are so fickle. I was one of two people within visible walking distance who had election lawn signs up - in fact, I had two on my property. My neighbour, who is obviously of a different political stripe than myself, mocked me (jokingly - or was it?) about me voting Conservative, and I tell you, it was hard to bite my tongue and merely give him the fake neighbourly smile I've given him for the past eight years.
The left wingers are chiding the election results, suggesting that they won, as they denied Harper a majority government. This, in part, is from the same Liberal party that had its worst showing since like 1984, and not too far removed from a loss in 1867, the year of confederation. Personally, I think this is both a hollow and a weak argument. Harper's Conservatives have been voted in twice, with the second minority much stronger. Doesn't sound like a weak leader to me. What cost Harper is the uneven distribution of representation by population, and I'm talking about the province of Quebec here, which happened to vote in large numbers for the separatist Bloc Quebecois (as an aside, I must say how pleasantly surprised I am to see visible minority members in the Bloc - and I also have to confess that I've always thought Gilles Duceppe was a great character for the federal scene. Don't agree with much of his viewpoints, but I love his sense of humour). Anyhow, this country is still a fairly fragmented country when it comes to regional politics. Case in point - Atlantic Canada voted almost all Liberal, Quebec is mostly Bloc, Toronto is all Liberal and NDP, Alberta is mostly Conservative and BC is 99% Conservative representation. Not sure about Saskatchewan or Manitoba and the territories, and I'm too lazy to find out.
So what's a minority mean for Harper? Well, it still means he can't push through things without getting some sort of support from at least one other party. For instance, his commitment to end the federal long gun registry will simply have to sit on the back burner for another few years - I can't forsee any other party supporting it. Another thing that a minority does is essentially force a checks and balances type of political co-operation. I think it provides good balance in that you don't get one party (and consequently one political stripe) dominating the making of laws, government spending and support of programs, etc. I know, it may be hard to hear that coming from someone who people view as narrow minded and a one-party guy. But look at what has happened elsewhere, namely in the U.S. With a Democratic House, Senate and President, government spending goes out of control. Similarly, I am not in favour of all branches of government being dominated by the Republicans. Does that mean that I am in favour of a politically pluralistic makeup of a government? Not entirely, but I think it's important at least to ensure that divergent voices are heard, so it doesn't run like a dictatorship.
Did you watch any of the Canadian leaders' debates? I watched the French one (kind of hard to understand the translation as the translators were talking over one another - each candidate had its own translator dubbing in his/her voice, to make it look more like an exchange rather than single statements from one single voice that translates for all the candidates) as well as the English one. I personally did not like that round table format. It made interrupting more easily accomplishable, as the candidates were obviously sitting more in a casual environment, and as such, all natural debate decorum went out the window. Steve Paikin was an effective moderator, but the close proximity in which the candidates sat made it much more easier to talk over the moderator.
I really question what Elizabeth May was doing there. Sure, the Greens had one seat in the House (which incidentally was not an elected seat - just an elected MP that switched parties). Some people will chastise me for my criticism of May, accusing me of being sexist. Not at all. May's gender had nothing to do with my belief that she shouldn't have been there. Her lack of party members elected had something to do with it, but let's be honest - she was so damn annoying. Contrast this to former federal NDP leader Alexa McDonough. She belonged in the debates as the NDP had more than a few seats and she at least had some debating skills. May came across as loud-mouthed and obnoxious. Did you see the one part where she was just reaming on Harper and Harper gave her that smiling look, you know, the one he gives people when he's about to choke them. But he showed tremendous restraint in not reacting to May; as a result, she looked like an idiot talking to herself.
I guess if I were to think long about this, I would probably not support the BQ being on the debate either. Sure, they have around 50 seats, which is noticeable, but as they are not a national party, I'm not sure why they would be in the debates - at least spare them from the English one, since they don't speak English for anything. Notice how the rest of the leaders inject French in their speeches and remarks, whereas the BQ never does? Sometimes I think Quebec has Canada by the balls way too often, and it's time the federal government stop catering to a special interests.
Of course, the biggest consequence tonight will be what will happen to that hapless fellow Stephane Dion? He ran a pretty poor election, which I don't really mind, since I don't vote Liberal, but honestly - he had all the issues wrong. His "Green Shift" carbon tax plan no one really cared about at the end, especially when the economy was the prime focus. He also didn't spend too much time explaining the exact details of the Green Shift plan to the electorate, and that brings me up to another point - his English is REALLY BAD. Chretien had an accent, but you could make out what he was saying. Dion, being in federal politics for so long - I'm surprised that his English is not much better. Hard to show that you are a leader when your communication and linguistic skills are not up to snuff.
Which leads me to my last point that I sincerely believe that this is not only the first kick at the can for Dion, but it will for sure be his last. The Liberals, at current count, have around 76 seats - that's down from 95. The Conservatives and NDP picked up a number of seats, while the BQ stayed the same. The Liberals lost quite a few seats. And even if it wasn't Dion's fault entirely (I believe it was, for a large part), he is the current leader and so he needs to take the first arrows. My guess is that he'll resign in a few days, and then the vultures will gather around and prepare for the second iteration of the modern day Liberal convention. All I can say is...anyone but Michael Ignatieff. That guy is one of those "as slimy as they come" politicians. Dude hasn't live in Canada for 40 years, and now is back...and for what - trying to become Prime Minister? I'd much rather see Gerard Kennedy, and to a lesser extent, Bob Rae. Anyone but Ignatieff. But like I said, I don't really care, since I don't vote nor support the Grits anyways.
Do you have any thoughts on the election? Please share them here.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Situational Ethics Revisited
Years ago, I read a book by well known ethicist Joseph Fletcher, entitled "Situation Ethics" (or is it "Situational Ethics"? I don't remember). In it, he suggests that ethics systems can and will be influenced by their sitaution. To simplify, your ethics system will adjust depending on circumstances. What you may do in one instance, you may not do in another. In essence, any moral response is contingent on environmental factors.
At the time of the reading, I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. I guess at the time, as a new Christian, I had an idealized version of how things can and should be. I thought it ridiculous that an ethics system can have, as its foundation, a worldview that does not show tangible consistency. It was, in my view at the time, a flawed system, one which really turns decisions into a truly subjective exercise and is devoid of any consistent belief system. Ultimately, I saw it cross with my theological understanding which espouses moral and ethical absolutes.
Fast forward to 2008, and my viewpoint hasn't changed...much. I still think an ethics system that can be easily swayed can show a lack of moral integrity and personal conviction in the adherent. I mean, essentially, this relegates ethical dilemmas to the realm of fashion, where one week something is "in" and the next week it is "out". Plus, moreover, I'm not entirely sure that having an ever-changing ethic system is in line with Scriptural principles. I know, I am over-simplifying, but hopefully you see my point, even a little bit.
Here's where I started to break away from my previous hard-wired stance on this topic. I think there is some truth to the old adage, "unless you have been in someone's shoes..." What really prompted me to look into this further was an article I read in the newspaper a while back, about a guy who lost his job and in trying to make ends meet for his kids, he decided to start robbing banks. Not sure if it was an armed robbery or the traditional "stick 'em up" types, complete with pantyhose on the head and a Brooklyn accent. Regardless, when I first read this, my first emotional response was that I felt sorry for this guy - not sorry as in patronizing sorry, but sorry in terms of empathetic sorry. Then I thought, "should I be feeling this way?" I mean, there are many people down on their luck who don't resort to robbing banks. Do I think this guy is a bad guy? I don't know - I would have thought that he was a scumbag 15 years ago, but now I am a father of two and I put myself in that position. What would I do? I can tell you that I don't think that I would not rob a bank, but would I be tempted to perhaps do other things which may not be so extreme in terms of criminality? Would I break away from my long-held conviction and practice of not offering cash to a merchant to save on tax? I don't know. Would I not report all my side income? I don't know. It's hard to say. Now, here's the rub: is any of this right? My response would be, "probably not."
Why the change in heart, as minor as it may be? Well, I think I am starting to look at things from a more wider spectrum. That is, I try not do judge a word or action in a vacuum. So in the wider scheme of things, I consider the following: why is the person doing or saying what he/she is doing or saying? In other words, I examine motive, something which I dismissed before. I think it is a factor in play. Now, here's where I can speak definitively for myself. Some actions or behaviour in nature, is inherently wrong. For instance, lying is wrong. However, would you fault a person who lies to a criminal in order to save the life of their family? Probably not. I wouldn't think twice. Does that mean that I demonstrated a coveted virtue? Probably not, but consider the following example in the Bible: Rahab deliberately lies in order to save the Israelites. Nowhere do I see that action condemned in the Bible - in fact, isn't Rahab mentioned in the Hebrews 11 "Hall of Fame" of the faith? Does that make lying OK? Of course not, but it certainly doesn't make it a cut and dry issue as I thought it once was.
Do I believe in white lies? No. I don't believe there are such a thing as an innocent lie. Now, this is based on my understanding of what sin is, and while I have never really read a truly good explanation of what sin is (usually, people will outline the effects or outcroppings of sin, not sin itself), I think that in reading the Bible all these years, I have come up with a fairly concise explanation: sin is separation from God, sure, but I would classify sin as any instance, whether in thought or speech or deed, where one puts the focus on themselves rather than God. Guess you can say it is driven out of selfish motive. That definition, I think, works given the fact that if you look at any sin, there is a commonality in the preservation or satisfaction of self. Look at lust, look at covetousness, look at lying, look at idolatry, murder, stealing, etc.
However, where I think motive comes into play is in an action which may historically have a self-driven motive, but in the situational cases they do not. A parent who has decided that without the ability to procure the proper legal means to pay for food for their kids, decides to do a Robin Hood approach (and even then, how many people have historically vilified Robin Hood?) and steal from the rich. The intention is not self-focussed. The action is still wrong, but are there degrees of wrong now?
I know, this is a slippery slope argument. In the above example, can you say that the stealing was justified if there were other means or avenues of options available that the individual just was not aware of? And what is considered a need compared to a want - there's a fine line sometimes. What if the parental thief goes from stealing food to stealing clothes and then starts to differentiate between basic clothes and brand name clothes. Is it the same thing to judge a person who steals bread and milk to feed their kids, as opposed to a parent who steals lobster and filet mignon?
(STOPPING THIS POST IN ORDER TO WATCH PALIN/BIDEN DEBATE...WILL RESUME LATER)
At the time of the reading, I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. I guess at the time, as a new Christian, I had an idealized version of how things can and should be. I thought it ridiculous that an ethics system can have, as its foundation, a worldview that does not show tangible consistency. It was, in my view at the time, a flawed system, one which really turns decisions into a truly subjective exercise and is devoid of any consistent belief system. Ultimately, I saw it cross with my theological understanding which espouses moral and ethical absolutes.
Fast forward to 2008, and my viewpoint hasn't changed...much. I still think an ethics system that can be easily swayed can show a lack of moral integrity and personal conviction in the adherent. I mean, essentially, this relegates ethical dilemmas to the realm of fashion, where one week something is "in" and the next week it is "out". Plus, moreover, I'm not entirely sure that having an ever-changing ethic system is in line with Scriptural principles. I know, I am over-simplifying, but hopefully you see my point, even a little bit.
Here's where I started to break away from my previous hard-wired stance on this topic. I think there is some truth to the old adage, "unless you have been in someone's shoes..." What really prompted me to look into this further was an article I read in the newspaper a while back, about a guy who lost his job and in trying to make ends meet for his kids, he decided to start robbing banks. Not sure if it was an armed robbery or the traditional "stick 'em up" types, complete with pantyhose on the head and a Brooklyn accent. Regardless, when I first read this, my first emotional response was that I felt sorry for this guy - not sorry as in patronizing sorry, but sorry in terms of empathetic sorry. Then I thought, "should I be feeling this way?" I mean, there are many people down on their luck who don't resort to robbing banks. Do I think this guy is a bad guy? I don't know - I would have thought that he was a scumbag 15 years ago, but now I am a father of two and I put myself in that position. What would I do? I can tell you that I don't think that I would not rob a bank, but would I be tempted to perhaps do other things which may not be so extreme in terms of criminality? Would I break away from my long-held conviction and practice of not offering cash to a merchant to save on tax? I don't know. Would I not report all my side income? I don't know. It's hard to say. Now, here's the rub: is any of this right? My response would be, "probably not."
Why the change in heart, as minor as it may be? Well, I think I am starting to look at things from a more wider spectrum. That is, I try not do judge a word or action in a vacuum. So in the wider scheme of things, I consider the following: why is the person doing or saying what he/she is doing or saying? In other words, I examine motive, something which I dismissed before. I think it is a factor in play. Now, here's where I can speak definitively for myself. Some actions or behaviour in nature, is inherently wrong. For instance, lying is wrong. However, would you fault a person who lies to a criminal in order to save the life of their family? Probably not. I wouldn't think twice. Does that mean that I demonstrated a coveted virtue? Probably not, but consider the following example in the Bible: Rahab deliberately lies in order to save the Israelites. Nowhere do I see that action condemned in the Bible - in fact, isn't Rahab mentioned in the Hebrews 11 "Hall of Fame" of the faith? Does that make lying OK? Of course not, but it certainly doesn't make it a cut and dry issue as I thought it once was.
Do I believe in white lies? No. I don't believe there are such a thing as an innocent lie. Now, this is based on my understanding of what sin is, and while I have never really read a truly good explanation of what sin is (usually, people will outline the effects or outcroppings of sin, not sin itself), I think that in reading the Bible all these years, I have come up with a fairly concise explanation: sin is separation from God, sure, but I would classify sin as any instance, whether in thought or speech or deed, where one puts the focus on themselves rather than God. Guess you can say it is driven out of selfish motive. That definition, I think, works given the fact that if you look at any sin, there is a commonality in the preservation or satisfaction of self. Look at lust, look at covetousness, look at lying, look at idolatry, murder, stealing, etc.
However, where I think motive comes into play is in an action which may historically have a self-driven motive, but in the situational cases they do not. A parent who has decided that without the ability to procure the proper legal means to pay for food for their kids, decides to do a Robin Hood approach (and even then, how many people have historically vilified Robin Hood?) and steal from the rich. The intention is not self-focussed. The action is still wrong, but are there degrees of wrong now?
I know, this is a slippery slope argument. In the above example, can you say that the stealing was justified if there were other means or avenues of options available that the individual just was not aware of? And what is considered a need compared to a want - there's a fine line sometimes. What if the parental thief goes from stealing food to stealing clothes and then starts to differentiate between basic clothes and brand name clothes. Is it the same thing to judge a person who steals bread and milk to feed their kids, as opposed to a parent who steals lobster and filet mignon?
(STOPPING THIS POST IN ORDER TO WATCH PALIN/BIDEN DEBATE...WILL RESUME LATER)
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The Proposed $700 Billion U.S. Economic Bailout
Earlier this week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted down the Bush
administration-proposed, and subsquently signifiantly altered, economic bailout package that was worth up to $700 billion dollars. That is a lot of money and if it makes you uncomfortable, it should. It is a lot of money.
After the bill's failure, the markets went for a huge tumble. The Dow fell in what was described as historic drops. I saw it in my own retirement investment portfolio (RRSP) and how it lost significant value over the span of a day. In looking at mutual fund and stock prices, I doubt anyone's portolio performed any differently than mine. Everything took a dive.
I am not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, but I really wonder whether this bailout package is the right thing for the U.S. Bush alluded to it in a prime-time address late last week (I believe) where he says normally he wouldn't consider bailing out those who make mistakes, and I see his point about what would happen if nothing was done, but maybe that's just what needs to be done - let's face it, the American economy is in a recession, and the signs of this have been evident for many years. My wife and I were talking recently and I think she said that it seemed like after 9/11, U.S. investments have been on a continuing spiral. I have picked up more U.S. funds in my portfolio in recent years thinking that it can't get any worse than the price for which I bought my units, but nope, the prices continue to slide.
I tend to agree with those who argue that this sends the wrong message to these companies who for years have been making risky, if not bad business decisions, taking chances on risky investments on a volatile housing market and paying their CEOs exorbitants amounts of money. To bail them out does seem to excuse these decisions, but I do realize it's not just the institutions' leaders that are affected - these firms have thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of employees who would be unemployed, and that, surely cannot help the economy.
Some have said that why should the average Joe have to chip in for the mistakes of Wall street? This is true, and I can empathize with this point, since this $700 billion is taxpayer money. I think that by not doing this, though, it's going to come back to hurt them in other ways such as being refused credit or lending for things like loans and mortgages. With no money to go around, who's going to lend it?
However, while I put the blame on these institutions for not properly vetting their potential borrowers due to greed, I also fault borrowers in general who borrow more than they can afford or take risks in taking on more credit than they can afford. But isn't this the way the culture is right now - we have these stupid payday loan companies who will be happy to lend you money at a ridiculous interest rate to help you cover things until you get your paycheque. People should realize that if you're going to one of these places, you have a bigger problem than needing a quick loan.
To me, the bailout, while stablizing the economy for the short-term, does not really address the long-term issue of pure greed, both from the lender, as well as the borrower. The bill was revamped and passed a Senate vote yesterday, but still needs to go to the house. I hope it's defeated again.
administration-proposed, and subsquently signifiantly altered, economic bailout package that was worth up to $700 billion dollars. That is a lot of money and if it makes you uncomfortable, it should. It is a lot of money.
After the bill's failure, the markets went for a huge tumble. The Dow fell in what was described as historic drops. I saw it in my own retirement investment portfolio (RRSP) and how it lost significant value over the span of a day. In looking at mutual fund and stock prices, I doubt anyone's portolio performed any differently than mine. Everything took a dive.
I am not an economist by any stretch of the imagination, but I really wonder whether this bailout package is the right thing for the U.S. Bush alluded to it in a prime-time address late last week (I believe) where he says normally he wouldn't consider bailing out those who make mistakes, and I see his point about what would happen if nothing was done, but maybe that's just what needs to be done - let's face it, the American economy is in a recession, and the signs of this have been evident for many years. My wife and I were talking recently and I think she said that it seemed like after 9/11, U.S. investments have been on a continuing spiral. I have picked up more U.S. funds in my portfolio in recent years thinking that it can't get any worse than the price for which I bought my units, but nope, the prices continue to slide.
I tend to agree with those who argue that this sends the wrong message to these companies who for years have been making risky, if not bad business decisions, taking chances on risky investments on a volatile housing market and paying their CEOs exorbitants amounts of money. To bail them out does seem to excuse these decisions, but I do realize it's not just the institutions' leaders that are affected - these firms have thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of employees who would be unemployed, and that, surely cannot help the economy.
Some have said that why should the average Joe have to chip in for the mistakes of Wall street? This is true, and I can empathize with this point, since this $700 billion is taxpayer money. I think that by not doing this, though, it's going to come back to hurt them in other ways such as being refused credit or lending for things like loans and mortgages. With no money to go around, who's going to lend it?
However, while I put the blame on these institutions for not properly vetting their potential borrowers due to greed, I also fault borrowers in general who borrow more than they can afford or take risks in taking on more credit than they can afford. But isn't this the way the culture is right now - we have these stupid payday loan companies who will be happy to lend you money at a ridiculous interest rate to help you cover things until you get your paycheque. People should realize that if you're going to one of these places, you have a bigger problem than needing a quick loan.
To me, the bailout, while stablizing the economy for the short-term, does not really address the long-term issue of pure greed, both from the lender, as well as the borrower. The bill was revamped and passed a Senate vote yesterday, but still needs to go to the house. I hope it's defeated again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)