Quebec Whines Over Tuition

A "strike" over a $100 tuition increase? Seriously now...
After reading "A dishonest student movement" from Maclean's, I think that Québec students don't have much to complain about seeing as their tuition is all of $2000/year. The out-of-province student tuition fees are still about the same as the regular tuition for in-province students in Ontario and other provinces. Personally, I spend around 6000$/year on tuition so to hear about students whining over a $100 raise on an already cheap tuition irks me.

I don't think the way they went about the issue (by not attending class) was a good way of handling it. They wasted more money skipping classes and jeopardizing their grades for $100. If any other university in any other province tried that, it would be shut down so fast. It comes off as a temper tantrum on a university-age scale. Suck it up and work a few extra hours to pay that off. Maybe these whining students should come across the provincial border to Ontario to see what it's like. That would be an eye-opener. Maybe those from other provinces are jealous or envious, but I think we have every right to as our tuition is generally over double what theirs is. After spending around $5000, whats another $100 really?

Solution? Standardize tuition across the country. I'm sure Québec would be outraged, but look how happy students in other provinces would be! Since the rest of the country outnumbers the Québec students, it would be a massive benefit to the majority!

Here are a few other opinions featured on a CBC news article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw2lgxxaZJc (again, there are embedding issues...grrr)

Excited Delirium?

After reading both the "Video of airport Taser death released" article in the National Post and watching the graphic video of the events (courtesy of Paul Pritchard), I have mixed feelings on this situation.

For one, the man was Polish - not Russian, and most likely not speaking "Russian".

This can be seen as ignorant on the part of Security, although it's easy to be unknowledgeable or make a mistake in such a multi-cultural area. Either way, the airport staff and police knew the man did not understand or speak English so would that not be a clear indication to call in a Translator/Interpreter to find out what the underlying problem is? If the underlying problem could have been resolved, there may have been no reason for physical action on the part of the police. The man is in an unknown, scary and foreign place (which is enough to agitate anyone) and it seems like his plans were slightly mixed up with his mother somewhere else in the very large airport. Not saying his behaviour of throwing computer equipment is justified, but more serious consequences could have been avoided with a bit of patience and common sense.

One other factor that may have played into this situation would be any health problems that Mr. Dziekanski may have had. Obviously, these would not be known by Security or the police, though when they realized he stopped moving when they had him pinned down was excessive. If Mr. Dziekanski had any heart problems the taser may have exacerbated them and he could have undergone major damage which lead to his death. Also, he may have had mental health issues with which the stress of the airport exacerbated agitation and caused him to have a greater reaction and behave differently with the tasering.

I am interested in knowing the autopsy results. As it stands, it has been termed Excited Delirium by the RCMP.

I also realize that it is so much easier to reflect back on a situation and point out all the flaws and say "I would have done this...", but if you were there at that moment in time, would you really do that? Probably not. Your adrenaline takes over sometimes. We've all been in situations like that. And what other option was there? Pepper spray in a crowded area? Assault? Yes, they seemed to hold him down for awhile, but what isn't apparent is if he was still resisting and struggling. Though, it will do no good to analyze this situation to death (no pun intended).

It was a fast, adrenaline-filled and unfortunate incident. Both parties played a role and we have to remember...accidents do happen.

This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCL4WrZ2kPA) is a longer version of the situation and shows the man before he was even throwing equipment. Being in mental health, I've learned to recognize agitation and in this case, it's obvious to even the general public. He's breathing fast and hard, holding a chair, and looks rather delirious and focussed on something that we are not aware of.

This other video I've posted is from CTV. It involves an interview with a witness as well as the RCMP spokesperson. (Blogspot is not allowing me to copy/paste the HTML to embed the video). Watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05vuY-kqp9o

No Men Allowed...?!

Upon reading, The tabs: no men allowed...Why do the gossip rags only feature women when there are so many stories of male stars behaving badly?, I realized how right they are. Men are not featured in tabloids nearly as often as women. Now, why is that? Macleans makes many arguments for why this is and the more I read, the more I agree with them.

The behaviour that tabloids tend to focus on is that which has been deemed "inappropriate" for women, such as excessive drinking and lude sexual activities. An example of this is Britney Spears appearing stoned and acting very much in a manner only acceptable for males.

Although in the present age, we are a more accepting society, we still have limits. Men seem to still be allowed to follow the double-standard of the "Boys will be boys" ideation that society accepts. For males, alcohol, drugs and sex are not considered unacceptable to the same extent as women. Male celebrities usually only make it to the tabloids when they make racist or bigot comments. One possibility Macleans makes is that the tabloids are playing the role that religion or tradition used to fill: the enforcement of what they view as the rules.

Another reason that tabloids focus on women is that most readers of gossip are women. It is sensical to think that women prefer to read about other women as they have more opportunity to relate. The article stated that women who read these tabloids (at least subconsciously) imagine themselves as part of that world. "They want the men to be Prince Charmings and the women to be evil stepsisters". As well, it is said that women have an innate interest in other women.

Not only do women enjoy reading about other women, but many of these young stars have been idolized as role models for young girls and their falling off the sane wagon has merited lots of attention. Some of the issues these celebrities are facing, such as eating disorders, some young women can relate to which is another source of interest in these female-focused tabloids. There is a certain disappointment, yet fascination "to see them fall from grace".

Overally, I agree with these arguments made by Macleans. It appears that the purpose of tabloid gossip is to punish celebrities for bad behaviour, though the definition of "bad behaviour" varies for both men and women in all aspects of life.

But what does all of this say about the people who read this sort of empty, pointless trash? Is it a meaningless past-time? Lifestyle? Who knows...

Don't Stop The Music

In the words of Rihanna: "please don't stop the music":

According to NBC chief executive, Jeff Zucker in the article "NBC executive slams Apple for killing music industry", Apple is doing exactly what the title implies - destroying the music industry. But is it really? In fact, Apple has "rescued the industry from irrelevance". CD sales have decreased, but Apple has promoted the sale of individual, downloaded songs for a fixed price. And download sales have soared.

VERSUS

So why is there all this hatred for Apple by NBC? The verdict appears to be that NBC is afraid Apple will do the same to it - kill the business. Recently, NBC pulled their TV episodes from iTunes due to a "decreased revenue" (although revenue was around the $15 million mark!). It appears that NBC (or at least just Jeff Zucker) did not agree with Apple's set price for all episodes. Zucker also claims that Apple refused to pay "NBC a cut of the iPod hardware sales". Apparently NBC's episodes contributed highly to iPod sales, or so Zucker thinks. But if you think about it...what about the money received from TV manufacturers? Is NBC getting a cut from their hardware sales? I don't think so.

First off Zucker has recently made numerous attacks on various other companies such as YouTube for stealing its programming.

Other recent (and ridiculous) statements made by NBC have included how law enforcement should spend less money on traditional crime and focus more on piracy and couterfeiting (I'm sure the little old lady who's house gets broken into will really appreciate that) or there's the comment concerning corn farmers. According to NBC, due to piracy, there are less ticket sales and less popcorn sales which means that corn growers are losing money. If there was less piracy, then the popcorn sales would increase, farmer's profits would increase and would grant them the ability to buy more farming equipment. This statement is utterly ridiculous! First off, movie theatres are not struggling, and secondly, any one watching movies at home can eat popcorn too. Soon enough, there will be a demand for a "cut of the profits corn farmers make, since, after all they're "profiting off the backs of the movie industry" without paying the industry for the benefit".

Basically, NBC needs to clean up its act and fire Zucker. He is causing more grief for the company and the others that he is so moronic-ly attacking.

So the real question should be:

Is Jeff Zucker killing television?!

Bile, Blame & Barren Islands

What do we do with ex-Prime Ministers, you ask?

There's an easy solution to this:

Exile them all to a barren, isolated island.

According to CBC News' "What to do with ex-PMs and all that pent-up bile?", Canada's ex-prime ministers have become grumpy and overflowing with blame for everyone, but themselves. It's like a political game of Survivor. Those that play the game best, and win the hearts of Canadians, get to stay in power. Those who don't play fairly are voted out, but instead of being kicked off of an island, their punishment would involve being marooned on a remote island far away from content citizens. This way, they can take out all their aggression on their fellow ex-PMs. Such drama and gossip, for example Mulroney's blame on Trudeau for his "refusal, as a young man, to fight in World War II, and this while Jews were being exterminated", would be avoided. Really, why are they even grumpy in the first place? If they did their job to the best of their ability, they shouldn't be upset...although I guess if most of a country didn't like you, then it would be a bit of a blow to the ego. I think the real reason that they are so bitter about their ending of term is that they realized they didn't do what they promised the country and the citizens have called them on it. If they were at all human, then of course they'd feel crappy and probably lash out in uncontrolled anger. My proposed solution would help control their emotions and prevent them from lashing out on a national level. I suppose if they behave themselves for awhile, then they could be slowly re-introduced to society.

Also, for a small fee (per target)...exceptionally angry citizens could fly over the island and flail pies at any ex-Prime Minister(s) that they choose.

Love, Sex and Robots

Sex and romance with a robot? A little weird I think.
Upon reading, MSNBC's "Sex and marriage with robots? It could happen", my first thoughts were those of Transformers and "You have to be DESPERATE!".

Marriage to a machine...do I need to say more? Beastiality, necrophilia et cetera are all considered socially unacceptable, so why do we assume it would be acceptable with a robot?
Personally, if I was with someone and they left me for a robot or decided to add a robot into their life, I would be flat-out insulted. I think many people would be doubting their self-worth (something robots cannot do!). Not to mention the impact someone would feel in knowing that they have to have a machine programmed to "love" them instead of finding their own true love.
Robots of the future may be able to be programmed with amazing talents, but can they really replace the passion and true romance between people? Can they think and react to what one partner does and adjust accordingly? No (not entirely). Humans are simply too complex to mimic.
And to love...in order to love, one must feel it, but can a robot possess the capability of feeling? How would it feel to have something say "I love you", but not understand the feeling of love? How about the element of surprise and spontaneity? If we are the ones programming them, how could there possibly be unexpectedness in your relationship? Furthermore, you are essentially thinking for two bodies as you are the brain supplying the robot with actions and "thoughts". You have complete control of this object and no sacrifices to be made in the relationship. Without sacrifice, you can't gain pleasure and have a tendency to take everything for granted. Personally, you need to have faults to have character and arguments over these is healthy! Its a big part of what a relationship is...having, accepting and dealing with human faults.
I don't think robots can replace humans, maybe superficially, but on a deeper level, no.

In terms of feelings, robots can be programmed to get angry, maybe this is archaic Jetson-like thinking, but what happens when the emotion malfunctions and gets out of control? Maybe these thoughts have more to do with culture than anything, as some countries such as Japan are much more accepting of these ideas and technology than many Western societies. Or opposite of out-of-control, what happens when they just fail to work? I'd say an incident like this would terminate a marriage when one partner fails to function at all.

And if robots can't replace humans 100%, what makes one think that they could be a suitable replacement for pedophiles or any other sex criminals? In the article, it was suggested that these human-like robots could be substitutes for the real thing (ie. give a pedophile a child-like robot to discourage them from attacking real humans). But if something is missing to make them truly human, then sex criminals may also note the difference and feel that these are not adequate substitutes. Essentially, the role of the robot would be useless if attackers continue to go after their human prey.
This can also lead to another point the article brought up (which I've already slightly mentioned) about robots and ethics. Is sex with robots ethical? Socially acceptable? What about using robots for acts that are considered sex crimes when done with humans? It is quite the ethical dilemma. One that's answer is not clear or easily decided.

There are many unanswerable questions, and I suppose the only way to answer them is to wait and see where technology takes us and how society accepts or rejects it.

On a side note, as unsuitable for love and marriage as I think robots are, they are still rather amazing technological creations.

A Failed Referendum

Reading Voters Roundly Reject MMP from the Globe and Mail clarified my views of the recent Ontario referendum.

Clearly, the title is a good indication of my opinion. The fact that it did not go through was a failure for Ontario.

Now why was it a failure?

How about lack of advertising for one thing...Here's an advertisement about the MMP system, which I know I definitely never saw before the election, nor did I see or hear any other advertisements.

Personally, I had no idea what the referendum was about. I had only heard rumours about there being one, until I asked my friend Andrian (a Masters student in political science) what was going on.

Another issue I have heard many people discussing is that people are afraid of the extra expense of having more seats.

+

=

In relation to other expenses that have been made by the government, this is peanuts. As well, what about all the money that was wasted away with things like Paul Martin's Sponsorship scandal?

I vote to give money for more seats. An MMP truly exercises democracy with the government actually reflecting what the people voted.

Look at how well MMP's are working in places like New Zealand, Germany, the UK et cetera. One important point is that yes, it did take New Zealand two referendum votes before the idea was implemented. So there is hope for Ontario. Maybe for the next referendum, society will be more informed and able to make better choices based on their increased knowledge of the topic at hand.

I believe MMP representation is a logical and fair way for the government to be elected and run.

To Marry or Not To Marry...

On CBC News there was a video discussion entitled "Whither Marriage" about the declining rates of marriage in Canada and who is to blame for the changing demographic. Barbara Kay was one of the members of the discussion and all I have to say is: Who does she think she is to blame single women for the demographic changes in Canada?! If she's a mother, like she claims to be, then she helped raise the "new generation" of women who aren't marrying and procreating at the age of 20. She [Barbara Kay] said it herself! Her daughter is middle-aged and trying to have children - deflecting the blame from herself for raising her child to want to enjoy life before "settling down"? I think so!

So why is there a sudden change in demographics? Who encouraged women to be independent and take time for themselves before (potentially) settling down and raising a family? I'd say its the same generation that Barbara is from and that are now realizing their so-called 'mistake' and trying to dig themselves out of the 'problem' that they created. Her ideas are archaic and very much old-fashioned. They are no longer the social norm for many reasons. Times are changing, and with that, the roles of women are rapidly evolving from the idea that women's only job is to be in the kitchen and raise a family. Although there is no title of "Family Woman" yet (because women are still associated with being primary caregivers), like there is a "Family Man", many women are choosing not to stay at home, but to continue with their careers and are changing society's ideas regarding gender roles.

Another possible reason for women having families later in life is not that they are being selfish and out partying through their 20's, but to get an adequate education, it takes much longer than it used to with many women choosing to gain a higher education. And a better education means a better chance of supporting oneself.

In her argument, Ms. Kay pointed out that Canada's demographics are changing. In Canada, yes, there are fewer marriages, but we still have common-law relationships, homosexual unions, and yes...children from unwed families. Maybe, Barbara Kay has forgotten - but you don't need to be married to reproduce. Although these relations are not categorized as "Marriage", they still add to our population. As well, our demographics are not suffering...our population is in no danger of 'dying out'. We simply maintain our population through immigration. And what is wrong with that? Nothing. To many people, Canada is an 'escape' - away from possible war, civil unrest, unemployment, persecution or other poor social conditions. I am proud to think that we are helping people from other countries, rather than adding to the major problem of overpopulation in the world. On the flip side, I do understand that we have what is known as an "Aging Population", but what are we going to do? Confine women to kitchens, make laws forcing women to procreate? This is a woman's personal choice - encourage women, but don't blame them and guilt them into having children.

It was stated that women who choose not to marry and have children are selfish. One question I'd like to ask her is when she was 20, was she really thinking about having children to "save the world"? I don't think so. I also don't think she thought that making sacrifices was "happiness".

I give kudos to those women who stay strong to themselves and live their lives the way they want to. Isn't that what women have been fighting for for years? To be free of oppression and gender stereotypes? Are we really willing to go back to being oppressed after all these years of fighting for choice and independence?

Her last point, that women should be supported financially by men...honestly, I don't even know where to begin with that comment.

Of course, my view is not completly unbiased as I consider myself independent and strong-willed (although not single at the moment - I am not even close to considering marriage) and belong to this generation of women. Maybe it is selfish to want a career, and to travel and enjoy life, but I'm not going to enslave myself to an unfit marriage to change the demographics of Canada and add to an already overpopulated world.

Instead of blaming single/childless women, promote choice and the ability to have a healthy balance between children, family, careers and education (et cetera).

The Greatest Hamiltonian

Recently the Hamilton Spectator published an article titled "The Greatest Hamiltonian" with profiles of many affluent citizens. The idea was to poll the readers for their ideas and opinions on who should be considered the "Greatest Hamiltonian".
I think the answer is pretty simple...

George Hamilton.

1787-1836

Without him, there wouldn't be a contest for the Greatest Hamiltonian as there would be no Hamilton as we know it! The list is comprised of many amazing and talented citizens that all have different talents and attributes, but none of this would matter without our buddy, George.

Like many of the other nominees, George Hamilton served in the War of 1812, where he was a Captain, participating in the capture of Detroit, the Battle of Queenston Heights and Lundy's Lane. Hamilton's purchase of 257 acres from the Barton Township led to the housing of a courthouse and gaol. He was a private land developer that used his cunning to draw commercial activities to his land all the while financially benefiting himself. He has said to have literally created the town.

Another focus of Hamilton's was to encourage immigration to Hamilton. He built a canal to link Hamilton Harbour to Lake Ontario. He had the ability to recognize the colony's special needs and possibilities before most.

Without George Hamilton, there would be no Hamilton Spectator to run this article, no Hamiltonians to be nominated, and no Hamilton to call "home".

George Hamilton is Hamilton!

A tour of Hamilton in all of its smoggy glory (thanks to Youtube)

A few examples of how Hamilton has evolved...

Above, Gage Park (Whitehern Museum Files)

Above, present day Gage Park (Google search)

_____________________________________________________________________

Above, McMaster site planning, 1930 (Whitehern Museum Files)

Above, McMaster University as it stands today (Google search)

HPV Cartoon

So many good cartoons out there...

(retrieved from Google search: HPV vaccine)

HPV Vaccine

Moral Issue? No way. Has anyone actually researched what HPV is and how it can be contracted? It's not just an STI. You don't need to have sexual intercourse to contract it so why is this a moral/religious issue? To me, this is an ignorance issue. Too many people with opinions, too few with solid facts.

The debate about whether to innoculate our children with this vaccination has been largely blown out of proportion.

If you were to take away the sexual aspect and promote this as a normal prevention drug of cancer, no one would have any objections, but as soon as you put sexual connotations on it, it becomes a huge controversy. Why is this? Sex is a natural phenomenon, and face it, 'white wedding' or not, sex happens with everyone's daughter at various ages so why not protect them before it's too late? People need to learn the facts before they begin making their outrageous conclusions. It's true, the HPV vaccine only covers strains 6, 11, 16 and 18, but it's better than nothing and just because one person in the relationship is STI-free, doesn't mean the other is. I have read numerous articles claiming that these strains are incredibly rare and that HPV is virtually impossible to contract if you use a rubber, but in truth, these are not the rarest strains of HPV and contagious warts can be on areas of the genitalia that are not protected by condoms. And let's face it, cancer or not...warts on your Hoo Hoo is not exactly the most attractive thing ever, nor is having them cauterized or frozen off.

The debate over whether to provide these innoculations is being settled by votes with different school boards and governments, but who are the people voting? Are they males or females? This is an issue that affects both sexes, but cervical cancer affects only females, so ideally, who should be making these decisions? How can a male understand the impact of cervical cancer or hysterectomies? Sorry guys, you just can't. These are events that have severe psychological and emotional impacts on women, and women only.

Another argument by over-protective parents, who have the notion that their child is, and always will be completly pure and innocent, is that this is a marketing ploy by large pharmaceutical companies. News flash: Sure, it may be, but what drug isn't?

One final issue, is the idea that this vaccination will promote young teenagers to have promiscuous, unsafe sexual intercourse. Just because this vaccine may prevent cancer and rather unattractive genital warts doesn't mean it will stop someone from procreating or contracting some other grotesque STI, so parents need to man-up and encourage their kids to wrap it up. Stop blaming the media, and start taking some responsibility.

I've also posted a 5 minute video from Fox-13 called "Vaccine Vote" which highlights key research about HPV and the new vaccine. Enjoy!

"Hello World."