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.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, October 15, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, October 5, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, October 1, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)