Knock knock.
Who's there?
"Get off your cell phone, now."
Get off your cell phone, now, who?
"It's against the law now."
...I don't get it.
That pretty much sums up the exchange I had with one of Ottawa's finest over the lunch hour today.
I had just dropped a friend off at at work after our weekly-or-so pilgrimage to the Elgin Street Diner and was cruising up Elgin on my way to work when I stopped at a red light. As I idled, an Ottawa Police officer rolled up on his bicycle. As I continued to idle, my car dealership called me to tell me how much they plan to gouge me for today for some minor car repairs.
I was talking to James (his real name) from the dealership, when Constable Tight Bike Shorts rapped his bike glove-covered knuckles on my passenger-side window.
I jumped, thinking that I was about to get car jacked by a homeless person and then, noticing Bikey McGee glaring at me, rolled down the window.
That's when the above exchange took place.
My stunned response to the not particularly nice officer's demand that I hang up my phone because it was no illegal to drive while chatting was something really intelligent like "Oh, is it?"
His snarkey response was something like: "Would I tell you it was if it wasn't?"
Good point.
So, in the span of about 17 seconds I learned a couple valuable lessons. The first, the law governing cell phone use in cars that I thought was ABOUT to come into effect, is, in fact, in effect now. The second, cops patrolling the streets on bicycles are more grumpy than those riding in cruisers or on motorcycles. I attribute this to the fact that they have to exercise while working and are dressed in less-than-flattering bike clothes.
The point is, get a headset, folks.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Fear mongering: diseased pigs and crashing stock markets
Today I woke up with a short-lived tightening in my chest, which immediately made me think if maybe I had been to Mexico recently and had simply forgotten.
I have never been to Mexico.
Then I thought the tightness may be due to stress caused by the state of the stock market.
I don't own stock in anything and never have.
In the end, the cause of the pain in my chest was that I had slept for several hours on my stomach, with the remote control for my TV pressing into my ribs.
However, the fact that the state of the stock market and the possibility of contracting the suddenly everywhere flu worried me, well, worried me.
Sure, I have an appropriate amount of concern over the faltering economy, but it doesn't keep me up at night and I have no immediate plans to jump off a tall building.
I also have no reason to worry about falling ill with this pig-carried flu because there have been only a handful of cases of it in Canada so far and they've all been pretty mild.
So why even think about it?
It's pretty hard not to, I'd say, thanks to this culture of fear mongering that has suddenly begun rolling again with renewed vigour.
Sure, it's pretty shitty that a bunch of Mexicans have died from this, until recently, fairly rare flu that has managed to hope over the border into our country, and several others. But at the same time, the comparisons between it and the Spanish flu that killed 50 million people is a little over the top, at this point anyway. Suggesting that people may want to rethink trips to Mexico for the time being is a good call, a solid precaution. But I'm sure as hell not going to start going to the gym wearing a surgical mask. Not yet anyway. But people are starting to do things like that, and for once I will blame the media. As a journalist, that is something I rarely do, but I have found the reporting on the swine flu so focused on scaring the shit out of people that most articles and news clips have largely ignored specific details about the illness. I didn't know anything about the associated symptoms of swine flu until after the first few days. Info like that was hardly ever mentioned. All I heard was "this could turn into a global pandemic, we're all doomed, blah blah blah".
That's not helping, it's just going to freak more people out.
I have never been to Mexico.
Then I thought the tightness may be due to stress caused by the state of the stock market.
I don't own stock in anything and never have.
In the end, the cause of the pain in my chest was that I had slept for several hours on my stomach, with the remote control for my TV pressing into my ribs.
However, the fact that the state of the stock market and the possibility of contracting the suddenly everywhere flu worried me, well, worried me.
Sure, I have an appropriate amount of concern over the faltering economy, but it doesn't keep me up at night and I have no immediate plans to jump off a tall building.
I also have no reason to worry about falling ill with this pig-carried flu because there have been only a handful of cases of it in Canada so far and they've all been pretty mild.
So why even think about it?
It's pretty hard not to, I'd say, thanks to this culture of fear mongering that has suddenly begun rolling again with renewed vigour.
Sure, it's pretty shitty that a bunch of Mexicans have died from this, until recently, fairly rare flu that has managed to hope over the border into our country, and several others. But at the same time, the comparisons between it and the Spanish flu that killed 50 million people is a little over the top, at this point anyway. Suggesting that people may want to rethink trips to Mexico for the time being is a good call, a solid precaution. But I'm sure as hell not going to start going to the gym wearing a surgical mask. Not yet anyway. But people are starting to do things like that, and for once I will blame the media. As a journalist, that is something I rarely do, but I have found the reporting on the swine flu so focused on scaring the shit out of people that most articles and news clips have largely ignored specific details about the illness. I didn't know anything about the associated symptoms of swine flu until after the first few days. Info like that was hardly ever mentioned. All I heard was "this could turn into a global pandemic, we're all doomed, blah blah blah".
That's not helping, it's just going to freak more people out.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Helmets, helmets everywhere
The City of Ottawa wants everyone to wear helmets all the time, apparently.
The city's protective services committee unanimously carried a motion by Coun. Diane Deans to get staff to draft a bylaw that, if passed, would require children and youth to wear helmets pretty much anywhere they go for fun, meaning skate parks, arenas and toboggan hills.
Now, no one has ever accused Diane Deans of being rationale, but this is just going a teeny bit too far.
Fine, if you're going to be stupid enough to ride a half-pipe on your skateboard without any head protection, you probably deserve a traumatic brain injury. But even still, is it really necessary to pass laws to mandate everything?
Christ, next thing you know we're going to all have to wear helmets when walking down an icy street. God knows I've fallen while doing that and lived to talk about it.
It gets to a point where we need to let people make their own decisions, stupid or not. Yes, parents should likely be making their kids wear helmets when they go for a bike ride, not because it's the law but because it makes sense. Bikes can go fast, you're elevated off the ground. You fall and bam. Coma. Maybe. But it's insane to start forcing this type of all-encompassing legislation on the world, or city in this case. As I said, there are some activities where it's just common sense to wear protection (err, get your mind out of the gutter, that's not what I'm talking about). And what, the city has so many extra bylaw officers that they are going to start hanging out at skate parks giving kids tickets? Yeah right. The average teenager will tell said officer to fuck off, while a helmet-less seven-year-old will just burst into tears and run home, likely getting hit by a car in the process.
If this bylaw does pass, you can't start giving kids tickets. How the hell can you? The average kid doesn't carry ID, so what's the bylaw guy or gal going to write on the ticket when the youngster exercises his right to remain silent (I might watch too many cop shows).
As for toboggan hills, how often have you seen kids riding a crazy carpet wearing a ski helmet? Not many, because unless you are sledding near trees, which is idiotic to begin with, what are you going to hit your head on.
Once again, City of Ottawa, there are more pressing issues.
The city's protective services committee unanimously carried a motion by Coun. Diane Deans to get staff to draft a bylaw that, if passed, would require children and youth to wear helmets pretty much anywhere they go for fun, meaning skate parks, arenas and toboggan hills.
Now, no one has ever accused Diane Deans of being rationale, but this is just going a teeny bit too far.
Fine, if you're going to be stupid enough to ride a half-pipe on your skateboard without any head protection, you probably deserve a traumatic brain injury. But even still, is it really necessary to pass laws to mandate everything?
Christ, next thing you know we're going to all have to wear helmets when walking down an icy street. God knows I've fallen while doing that and lived to talk about it.
It gets to a point where we need to let people make their own decisions, stupid or not. Yes, parents should likely be making their kids wear helmets when they go for a bike ride, not because it's the law but because it makes sense. Bikes can go fast, you're elevated off the ground. You fall and bam. Coma. Maybe. But it's insane to start forcing this type of all-encompassing legislation on the world, or city in this case. As I said, there are some activities where it's just common sense to wear protection (err, get your mind out of the gutter, that's not what I'm talking about). And what, the city has so many extra bylaw officers that they are going to start hanging out at skate parks giving kids tickets? Yeah right. The average teenager will tell said officer to fuck off, while a helmet-less seven-year-old will just burst into tears and run home, likely getting hit by a car in the process.
If this bylaw does pass, you can't start giving kids tickets. How the hell can you? The average kid doesn't carry ID, so what's the bylaw guy or gal going to write on the ticket when the youngster exercises his right to remain silent (I might watch too many cop shows).
As for toboggan hills, how often have you seen kids riding a crazy carpet wearing a ski helmet? Not many, because unless you are sledding near trees, which is idiotic to begin with, what are you going to hit your head on.
Once again, City of Ottawa, there are more pressing issues.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Pre-trial credits, seriously?
God love Canada's justice system, eh?
Some defence lawyer is pissed because of a Conservative government plan to get rid of a time-served credit for people waiting to go on trial, meaning that if you commit (allegedly of course) a crime and spend time in custody before your trial, you get credited for two days served of your sentence for every one day actually served.
Say what? Why are we giving criminals credit for anything? Oh, it must have been tough spending 30 days in a detention centre for raping the old lady, so when you get sentenced, we'll just round that 30 days up to 60 and knock that off your time in jail. High five!
This lawyer, Mark Ertel, sounds like just the king of guy that gives criminal defence lawyers the type of not so amazing reputation they have. I can get on board with knocking the actual number of days served pre-trial of a sentence, but barely. The idea of two-for-ones is insane.
I'm not saying I support the idea of getting rid of this farce as a detterent to people committing crime, because as University of Ottawa criminology Prof. Irvin Waller put it in a story in the Ottawa Sun today, "we know the length of prison sentences makes no difference to deterrence."
I buy that. I just don't see why we should reward criminals for hanging out in jail before their trials.
Some defence lawyer is pissed because of a Conservative government plan to get rid of a time-served credit for people waiting to go on trial, meaning that if you commit (allegedly of course) a crime and spend time in custody before your trial, you get credited for two days served of your sentence for every one day actually served.
Say what? Why are we giving criminals credit for anything? Oh, it must have been tough spending 30 days in a detention centre for raping the old lady, so when you get sentenced, we'll just round that 30 days up to 60 and knock that off your time in jail. High five!
This lawyer, Mark Ertel, sounds like just the king of guy that gives criminal defence lawyers the type of not so amazing reputation they have. I can get on board with knocking the actual number of days served pre-trial of a sentence, but barely. The idea of two-for-ones is insane.
I'm not saying I support the idea of getting rid of this farce as a detterent to people committing crime, because as University of Ottawa criminology Prof. Irvin Waller put it in a story in the Ottawa Sun today, "we know the length of prison sentences makes no difference to deterrence."
I buy that. I just don't see why we should reward criminals for hanging out in jail before their trials.
Twittery, dickory, dock
People who constantly update their Facebook statuses with boring details about their lives that very few other people, if any, actually care about, drive me crazy.
I don't care that you like/love your boyfriend/girlfriend. I assume you do.
I don't care that you don't feel like going to work. Neither do I.
And I don't care that you are confused/upset/angry/discouraged. You are only posting that so someone will ask you why.
The above is why the extent of my status updates on Facebook generally consist of plugging my blog or my photography website.
And then yesterday I signed up for Twitter. Having banged around on the site for a bit, I've got to say I'm pleased that someone managed to take the status update concept and turn it into something useful. Basically, as far as I can tell, Twitter is just the status portion of Facebook, which rids you of all the creepy stalker stuff and 16-year-olds who take endless self-portraits of themselves for the sole purpose of a FB album.
Now, I still don't really care about the average person's status updates. (Again, if it's 1 p.m. on a Wednesday, I assume you are at work, so posting that you're at work is kind of redundant.) But I've already found many useful people to follow (if you don't understand what that means you are out of touch and should look it up) on Twitter where the updates are actually interesting.
With this tool, you can follow news sites, entertainment sites, celebrities, tech-savvy politicians, etc. and get quick and informative updates in 140 words or less. From what I can see, many news sites (CBC, CTV, etc.) are using it to frequently post headlines of big stories, and that's awesome. It saves me the time from having to screw around on sometimes less-than-stellar websites to find stuff. A former journalism professor of mine has posted links to websites useful to anyone in the business and that is also very cool. I also think it will be even more useful once more people catch on and those boring "I'm at work" status updates may actually become useful. For example, you're trying to track down a friend, you can check their Twitter feed to find out, they are in fact on their way to meet you, assuming they have updated their account.
So again, here's another online tool for people to keep tabs on us wherever we are, but so far it seems this one could significantly more useful, and a lot less violating, than Facebook.
I don't care that you like/love your boyfriend/girlfriend. I assume you do.
I don't care that you don't feel like going to work. Neither do I.
And I don't care that you are confused/upset/angry/discouraged. You are only posting that so someone will ask you why.
The above is why the extent of my status updates on Facebook generally consist of plugging my blog or my photography website.
And then yesterday I signed up for Twitter. Having banged around on the site for a bit, I've got to say I'm pleased that someone managed to take the status update concept and turn it into something useful. Basically, as far as I can tell, Twitter is just the status portion of Facebook, which rids you of all the creepy stalker stuff and 16-year-olds who take endless self-portraits of themselves for the sole purpose of a FB album.
Now, I still don't really care about the average person's status updates. (Again, if it's 1 p.m. on a Wednesday, I assume you are at work, so posting that you're at work is kind of redundant.) But I've already found many useful people to follow (if you don't understand what that means you are out of touch and should look it up) on Twitter where the updates are actually interesting.
With this tool, you can follow news sites, entertainment sites, celebrities, tech-savvy politicians, etc. and get quick and informative updates in 140 words or less. From what I can see, many news sites (CBC, CTV, etc.) are using it to frequently post headlines of big stories, and that's awesome. It saves me the time from having to screw around on sometimes less-than-stellar websites to find stuff. A former journalism professor of mine has posted links to websites useful to anyone in the business and that is also very cool. I also think it will be even more useful once more people catch on and those boring "I'm at work" status updates may actually become useful. For example, you're trying to track down a friend, you can check their Twitter feed to find out, they are in fact on their way to meet you, assuming they have updated their account.
So again, here's another online tool for people to keep tabs on us wherever we are, but so far it seems this one could significantly more useful, and a lot less violating, than Facebook.
Friday, March 20, 2009
To helmet or not to helmet
The sudden death of actress Natasha Richardson on the ski slopes of Mont Tremblant are adding some serious fuel to the debate of whether or not skiers should be forced to wear helmets while on the hills.
I have a bit of a hypocritical view on the subject, because while I think that people should wear a helmet skiing/snowboarding, I have never -- with the noted exception of when I used to race and helmets were mandatory -- worn a helmet skiing. I probably never will wear one skiing, unless of course I am required to do so.
I can't really defend my defiance here as I really can't think of an argument that would justify my not wearing one. If I had to, I would probably say that because I fall under the category of an advanced skier, the odds of me tipping over and knocking my head on the ground (such as was the case with Richardson) are likely slim. I've taken some pretty nasty falls in the 20 or so years I've been a skier, and never once have I been worried about suffering a head injury. In fact, when I've taken big spills on a ski hill my head is usually the last of my worries, after worrying about breaking a limb or my skis. I don't glade ski (skiing around trees) so I'm not too worried about crashing into a tree. If I did glade ski, I would most definitely sport a helmet. I don't do any kind of intense ski jumping, either. So I feel that, while I probably should wear a helmet, the risk of me cracking my head open on a ski hill are relatively minimal.
So this brings me to my point and my thoughts on the idea of forcing helmets on skiers. Don't. But there should be some system in place where skiers of a lower skill should be made to wear them. Richardson was apparently a novice skier, was skiing on a beginner run (I've been on the run in question, and it is about as flat and harmless-looking as it gets) and it sounds as if she more or less tipped over and hit her head. As it is, the odds of such a fall causing a fatal head injury are slim, and the odds of an expert skier falling that way are likely even slimmer.
So for experienced skiers comfortable on any run, helmets should be a personal choice. For anyone else though, I don't dispute that helmets save lives and therefore should be worn by the less experienced.
I have a bit of a hypocritical view on the subject, because while I think that people should wear a helmet skiing/snowboarding, I have never -- with the noted exception of when I used to race and helmets were mandatory -- worn a helmet skiing. I probably never will wear one skiing, unless of course I am required to do so.
I can't really defend my defiance here as I really can't think of an argument that would justify my not wearing one. If I had to, I would probably say that because I fall under the category of an advanced skier, the odds of me tipping over and knocking my head on the ground (such as was the case with Richardson) are likely slim. I've taken some pretty nasty falls in the 20 or so years I've been a skier, and never once have I been worried about suffering a head injury. In fact, when I've taken big spills on a ski hill my head is usually the last of my worries, after worrying about breaking a limb or my skis. I don't glade ski (skiing around trees) so I'm not too worried about crashing into a tree. If I did glade ski, I would most definitely sport a helmet. I don't do any kind of intense ski jumping, either. So I feel that, while I probably should wear a helmet, the risk of me cracking my head open on a ski hill are relatively minimal.
So this brings me to my point and my thoughts on the idea of forcing helmets on skiers. Don't. But there should be some system in place where skiers of a lower skill should be made to wear them. Richardson was apparently a novice skier, was skiing on a beginner run (I've been on the run in question, and it is about as flat and harmless-looking as it gets) and it sounds as if she more or less tipped over and hit her head. As it is, the odds of such a fall causing a fatal head injury are slim, and the odds of an expert skier falling that way are likely even slimmer.
So for experienced skiers comfortable on any run, helmets should be a personal choice. For anyone else though, I don't dispute that helmets save lives and therefore should be worn by the less experienced.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Bus ads aren't a big deal, so chill and enjoy your life
I'm not going to get into any sort of is there or isn't there a god debate. I'm not religious, and that's a personal decision. There are many, probably too many, religious out there, and most of them believe in a different god, and if it makes you happy to believe that your god is the only "real" one, or if you want to believe that there is a universe full of diverse gods, or if you think it's all bullshit, then more power to you. It's your business.
But if I've learned anything in my career in newspapers, and I hope that I have at least learned a thing or two so far, it's that you have some cash, you pretty much buy advertising space for anything. You want to hook up with a transvestite midget, buy an ad. You want to sell extra book shelves you don't have room for, buy an ad. You want to find a good room in an inexpensive, though maybe slightly cult-ish, home for your senile parent, buy an ad.
And, of course, if you want to tell everyone to relax because, hey, there probably isn't a god, buy an ad.
If the City of Ottawa does, and they likely will, decide to allow ads by an atheist group that says something like, "there probably isn't a god, so relax and enjoy your day", they will be making the right decision. Sure, the ad is probably expensive as hell and will be rather large, they aren't advertising anything illegal or immoral.
If a religious group feels like buying a bunch of ads that says "god loves you", go ahead. Regardless of what an ad says doesn't mean it's true, whatever the message is. For the religious folk that want to spend their time protesting this, they may want to ask themselves the question of how strong their faith really is. If you are a true believer, an ad that says there isn't a god shouldn't make you feel differently. To these people I say stop worrying about what other people will think when they see these ads. It's their business, and their beliefs are just as a valuable as yours. So relax and enjoy your day, however you want to do that. There are bigger fish to fry.
But if I've learned anything in my career in newspapers, and I hope that I have at least learned a thing or two so far, it's that you have some cash, you pretty much buy advertising space for anything. You want to hook up with a transvestite midget, buy an ad. You want to sell extra book shelves you don't have room for, buy an ad. You want to find a good room in an inexpensive, though maybe slightly cult-ish, home for your senile parent, buy an ad.
And, of course, if you want to tell everyone to relax because, hey, there probably isn't a god, buy an ad.
If the City of Ottawa does, and they likely will, decide to allow ads by an atheist group that says something like, "there probably isn't a god, so relax and enjoy your day", they will be making the right decision. Sure, the ad is probably expensive as hell and will be rather large, they aren't advertising anything illegal or immoral.
If a religious group feels like buying a bunch of ads that says "god loves you", go ahead. Regardless of what an ad says doesn't mean it's true, whatever the message is. For the religious folk that want to spend their time protesting this, they may want to ask themselves the question of how strong their faith really is. If you are a true believer, an ad that says there isn't a god shouldn't make you feel differently. To these people I say stop worrying about what other people will think when they see these ads. It's their business, and their beliefs are just as a valuable as yours. So relax and enjoy your day, however you want to do that. There are bigger fish to fry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)