snowywolfowl: (Owl face)
"Having worked in the fields of public relations and communications I'm not sure if I'm going to win friends and influence people by calling the Queen Mother of England a two hundred year old reptilian cannibal." - UFO researcher

Yeah I'm in the wierd part of Youtube right now watching programs about UFO alien Illuminati conspiracy theories. Hey, its a slow night and don't worry. Just because I believe that there is intelligent life in the universe somewhere doesn't mean I think its in my backyard sizing me up for a barbeque. After all I live in Canada. Have you seen how we drive? :-p
snowywolfowl: (Canadian Flag)
It's pronounced "Can-a-da". We do not pronounce it "Can-eh-dee-ah". I have no issues when recording artists or comedians, or people who honestly don't know pronounce it that way but you're a news media organization. If you say "that's how they pronounce it" and I know its wrong, it just provides me with a good reason to doubt your journalistic accuracy with other stories.
snowywolfowl: (Canadian Flag)
But if this is as widespread as is being alleged I'm not sure what might happen here. I don't think there is any precedence for ordering new elections over illegal electoral misdirection.

For those unfamiliar with the story there are allegations that the Conservative Party had an American based company make robo-calls to Liberal and New Democratic Party supporters. That in itself is not illegal, but telling voters to go to the incorrect voting station so that they can't effectively exercise their right to vote is.

So, is this an important story? Considering several parliamentary ridings were won and lost by narrow margins it is possible such actions had a direct effect in determining which party gets to be the Government. That's a BIG thing, considering it determines the direction Canada takes in fiscal, domestic, and international policy. More important though is the principle of the thing. I was taught as a elementary school student that my vote counts on election day. If its ok for parties to interfere with and disrupt a citizen's ability to vote simply because they support a different party, then maybe we need to rethink what we tell school children in Grade Six social studies.

The Conservatives apparently do not want an inquiry into this but since this is about the integrity of Parliament, and not the Government, it's not their choice to make. I'll be watching what the Speaker decides.

If interested here's a link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/02/26/pol-robocalls-cp.html
snowywolfowl: (Canadian Flag)
But if this is as widespread as is being alleged I'm not sure what might happen here. I don't think there is any precedence for ordering new elections over illegal electoral misdirection.

For those unfamiliar with the story there are allegations that the Conservative Party had an American based company make robo-calls to Liberal and New Democratic Party supporters. That in itself is not illegal, but telling voters to go to the incorrect voting station so that they can't effectively exercise their right to vote is.

So, is this an important story? Considering several parliamentary ridings were won and lost by narrow margins it is possible such actions had a direct effect in determining which party gets to be the Government. That's a BIG thing, considering it determines the direction Canada takes in fiscal, domestic, and international policy. More important though is the principle of the thing. I was taught as a elementary school student that my vote counts on election day. If its ok for parties to interfere with and disrupt a citizen's ability to vote simply because they support a different party, then maybe we need to rethink what we tell school children in Grade Six social studies.

The Conservatives apparently do not want an inquiry into this but since this is about the integrity of Parliament, and not the Government, it's not their choice to make. I'll be watching what the Speaker decides.

If interested here's a link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/02/26/pol-robocalls-cp.html
snowywolfowl: (Canadian Flag)
But if this is as widespread as is being alleged I'm not sure what might happen here. I don't think there is any precedence for ordering new elections over illegal electoral misdirection.

For those unfamiliar with the story there are allegations that the Conservative Party had an American based company make robo-calls to Liberal and New Democratic Party supporters. That in itself is not illegal, but telling voters to go to the incorrect voting station so that they can't effectively exercise their right to vote is.

So, is this an important story? Considering several parliamentary ridings were won and lost by narrow margins it is possible such actions had a direct effect in determining which party gets to be the Government. That's a BIG thing, considering it determines the direction Canada takes in fiscal, domestic, and international policy. More important though is the principle of the thing. I was taught as a elementary school student that my vote counts on election day. If its ok for parties to interfere with and disrupt a citizen's ability to vote simply because they support a different party, then maybe we need to rethink what we tell school children in Grade Six social studies.

The Conservatives apparently do not want an inquiry into this but since this is about the integrity of Parliament, and not the Government, it's not their choice to make. I'll be watching what the Speaker decides.

If interested here's a link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/02/26/pol-robocalls-cp.html
snowywolfowl: (Canadian Flag)
The New York Times has an article online describing how many countries are no longer modeling their constitutions on the US model, but are instead looking towards newer, more recent ones like Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It's a very fascinating read but I am not really sure what to make of this. While I'm certainly flattered that many countries seem to be finding useful value within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I can't help but consider the oddness of looking to a document that hasn't been ratified by every province of Canada*.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the Charter, and believe it to be a very well thought document to base our laws on. I think I'm just going to be interested in seeing where the constitutional compasses of the world are pointing in 20 years.

For those interested in the article it's here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html?_r=1

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be found here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/

And if anyone is interested for comparisons the US Constitution is here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28bdsdccc0801%29%29

*Quebec's refusal to ratify has lead to a few constitutional summits to try to break that impasse, which have been such colossal failures I think I'd rather have another blood clot than have Canada go through another one. For those wondering why I fully support keeping the Monarchy in its current position in Canada even when I freely admit it has no relevance to Canadian decision making, there's your reason.
snowywolfowl: (Canadian Flag)
The New York Times has an article online describing how many countries are no longer modeling their constitutions on the US model, but are instead looking towards newer, more recent ones like Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It's a very fascinating read but I am not really sure what to make of this. While I'm certainly flattered that many countries seem to be finding useful value within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I can't help but consider the oddness of looking to a document that hasn't been ratified by every province of Canada*.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the Charter, and believe it to be a very well thought document to base our laws on. I think I'm just going to be interested in seeing where the constitutional compasses of the world are pointing in 20 years.

For those interested in the article it's here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html?_r=1

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be found here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/

And if anyone is interested for comparisons the US Constitution is here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28bdsdccc0801%29%29

*Quebec's refusal to ratify has lead to a few constitutional summits to try to break that impasse, which have been such colossal failures I think I'd rather have another blood clot than have Canada go through another one. For those wondering why I fully support keeping the Monarchy in its current position in Canada even when I freely admit it has no relevance to Canadian decision making, there's your reason.
snowywolfowl: (Canadian Flag)
The New York Times has an article online describing how many countries are no longer modeling their constitutions on the US model, but are instead looking towards newer, more recent ones like Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It's a very fascinating read but I am not really sure what to make of this. While I'm certainly flattered that many countries seem to be finding useful value within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I can't help but consider the oddness of looking to a document that hasn't been ratified by every province of Canada*.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the Charter, and believe it to be a very well thought document to base our laws on. I think I'm just going to be interested in seeing where the constitutional compasses of the world are pointing in 20 years.

For those interested in the article it's here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html?_r=1

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be found here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/

And if anyone is interested for comparisons the US Constitution is here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28bdsdccc0801%29%29

*Quebec's refusal to ratify has lead to a few constitutional summits to try to break that impasse, which have been such colossal failures I think I'd rather have another blood clot than have Canada go through another one. For those wondering why I fully support keeping the Monarchy in its current position in Canada even when I freely admit it has no relevance to Canadian decision making, there's your reason.
snowywolfowl: (Default)

Remember those alcoholic energy drinks that are supposedly too dangerous for human consumption? Well apparently some enterprising people have decided that "blackout in a can" need only apply to the nervous system of the average college student, not the power grid. Apparently there are plans afoot to convert them into ethanol to run bio-fuel based cars.

Isn't science wonderful? Here's the text of the article:

Outlawed Four Loko drink could be turned into ethanol fuel

The famously outlawed Four Loko alcoholic energy drink could be turned into ethanol fuel according to a report by the Associated Press.
 
The drink was deemed too dangerous for public consumption by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As a result, thousands upon thousands of cans of the stuff are going to waste.
 
The good news though is that they can be recycled into ethanol which could be used to power cars. A spokesman for one of the ethanol recycling facilities said they could process up to four trucks, or 8,000 cases per day. Four Loko isn't the only drink of its kind that has been outlawed, so we could see this program go on for several months.
snowywolfowl: (Default)

Remember those alcoholic energy drinks that are supposedly too dangerous for human consumption? Well apparently some enterprising people have decided that "blackout in a can" need only apply to the nervous system of the average college student, not the power grid. Apparently there are plans afoot to convert them into ethanol to run bio-fuel based cars.

Isn't science wonderful? Here's the text of the article:

Outlawed Four Loko drink could be turned into ethanol fuel

The famously outlawed Four Loko alcoholic energy drink could be turned into ethanol fuel according to a report by the Associated Press.
 
The drink was deemed too dangerous for public consumption by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As a result, thousands upon thousands of cans of the stuff are going to waste.
 
The good news though is that they can be recycled into ethanol which could be used to power cars. A spokesman for one of the ethanol recycling facilities said they could process up to four trucks, or 8,000 cases per day. Four Loko isn't the only drink of its kind that has been outlawed, so we could see this program go on for several months.
snowywolfowl: (Default)

Remember those alcoholic energy drinks that are supposedly too dangerous for human consumption? Well apparently some enterprising people have decided that "blackout in a can" need only apply to the nervous system of the average college student, not the power grid. Apparently there are plans afoot to convert them into ethanol to run bio-fuel based cars.

Isn't science wonderful? Here's the text of the article:

Outlawed Four Loko drink could be turned into ethanol fuel

The famously outlawed Four Loko alcoholic energy drink could be turned into ethanol fuel according to a report by the Associated Press.
 
The drink was deemed too dangerous for public consumption by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As a result, thousands upon thousands of cans of the stuff are going to waste.
 
The good news though is that they can be recycled into ethanol which could be used to power cars. A spokesman for one of the ethanol recycling facilities said they could process up to four trucks, or 8,000 cases per day. Four Loko isn't the only drink of its kind that has been outlawed, so we could see this program go on for several months.
snowywolfowl: (Default)


http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/28/arkansas.anti.gay.resignation/index.html?hpt=C1

Wow.

I'm going to tell you what I think here. First, here is what Mr. McCance posted on his Facebook site:

"Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers committed suicide. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed therselves because of their sin." (sic)

Well, I'd like to first take the whole religion aspect out of it. I don't care what he thinks or feels there. He has my support to worship in whatever way he chooses. Whether or not you think homosexuality is odious or acceptable you do have a right to your own opinions, feelings and interpretations of theology. I'm not interested in "oh, but God is love! Its a sin to hate!" or "God hates gays" arguments here today because frankly, they are completely irrelevant. Religion doesn't matter here and to bring it in is a red herring to the real issue.

Secondly, I don't feel the least bit offended that he feels that I, along with the rest of those who have no issues with homosexuality, are stupid. I've been called more creative things by local drivers crossing the street,  so the idea of anyone outside his community getting insulted is making a mountain out of the molehill. It's a waste of emotion.

Likewise the idea of him hating to wear purple is also fine by me.  I mean seriously, I can't even get up the drive to do Halloween anymore, let alone wear any specific colours that I just look bad in for a cause. Because of that I can't harp on a guy for saying "no way Jose" to wearing purple for a cause he doesn't care about. Frankly there are bigger issues in the world.

The only issue I have, and the reason he had to resign (or be kicked out immediately) is the damage he does through the perception of authority.  If the local citizen oversight of a schoolboard honestly hates the children they are trying to educate and wishes them to die then how can the school provide effective support and prevention programs? You could use any number of analogies here to describe why his presence is no longer feasible:

           1. If he was called up for jury duty for a gay person's trial and said this he'd be dismissed as a potential juror immediately. And lest you worry that I'm being a bleeding heart liberal here lets forget the defence lawyer, if you're prosecuting do you want this mistrial waiting to happen taking up your time? Trials are expensive. You don't give the defence freebie appeals, especially those based on openly biased jurors.
           2. If he'd said this about Black History Month, and wished his African American students to kill themselves, well, I'm not even sure Gov. George Wallace in his early days would back him up on that.  It would be such a bizarre take on "separate but equal" I'm not sure how it would work. Would it be "we all die, so we are all equal, just you die first so that we can be separate"? I'm finding that very confusing and I wrote the analogy. I can't imagine it for you the reader.
         3. Returning to lawyers again, this guy makes the entire school district the best looking lawsuit bait in the country. All it would take is one kid either getting hurt or self hurting and it would be a jackpot. I admit I'm not too particularly knowledgeable legally but I'd be terrified that a half smart lawyer would argue successfully that all the anti-bullying and student mental health supports failed because they didn't exist in a real world fashion. Imagine how ridiculous that defence would look: "No, your honour we provided every service possible to prevent the suicides of those worthless queer children we really wished would just kill themselves to spare us being contaminated by their filthy immoral lifestyle." 

I could go one here but I think I've made the point.

This is perhaps a bit over the top  but frankly, I'm not surprised he's being pushed to resign.* The big surprise for me is that he thought Facebook was private somehow.
 

Ok.

Good bye Mr. McCance. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

*Would anybody reading this honestly NOT push him to resign after saying that, especially just considering legal liability? 


 


snowywolfowl: (Default)


http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/28/arkansas.anti.gay.resignation/index.html?hpt=C1

Wow.

I'm going to tell you what I think here. First, here is what Mr. McCance posted on his Facebook site:

"Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers committed suicide. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed therselves because of their sin." (sic)

Well, I'd like to first take the whole religion aspect out of it. I don't care what he thinks or feels there. He has my support to worship in whatever way he chooses. Whether or not you think homosexuality is odious or acceptable you do have a right to your own opinions, feelings and interpretations of theology. I'm not interested in "oh, but God is love! Its a sin to hate!" or "God hates gays" arguments here today because frankly, they are completely irrelevant. Religion doesn't matter here and to bring it in is a red herring to the real issue.

Secondly, I don't feel the least bit offended that he feels that I, along with the rest of those who have no issues with homosexuality, are stupid. I've been called more creative things by local drivers crossing the street,  so the idea of anyone outside his community getting insulted is making a mountain out of the molehill. It's a waste of emotion.

Likewise the idea of him hating to wear purple is also fine by me.  I mean seriously, I can't even get up the drive to do Halloween anymore, let alone wear any specific colours that I just look bad in for a cause. Because of that I can't harp on a guy for saying "no way Jose" to wearing purple for a cause he doesn't care about. Frankly there are bigger issues in the world.

The only issue I have, and the reason he had to resign (or be kicked out immediately) is the damage he does through the perception of authority.  If the local citizen oversight of a schoolboard honestly hates the children they are trying to educate and wishes them to die then how can the school provide effective support and prevention programs? You could use any number of analogies here to describe why his presence is no longer feasible:

           1. If he was called up for jury duty for a gay person's trial and said this he'd be dismissed as a potential juror immediately. And lest you worry that I'm being a bleeding heart liberal here lets forget the defence lawyer, if you're prosecuting do you want this mistrial waiting to happen taking up your time? Trials are expensive. You don't give the defence freebie appeals, especially those based on openly biased jurors.
           2. If he'd said this about Black History Month, and wished his African American students to kill themselves, well, I'm not even sure Gov. George Wallace in his early days would back him up on that.  It would be such a bizarre take on "separate but equal" I'm not sure how it would work. Would it be "we all die, so we are all equal, just you die first so that we can be separate"? I'm finding that very confusing and I wrote the analogy. I can't imagine it for you the reader.
         3. Returning to lawyers again, this guy makes the entire school district the best looking lawsuit bait in the country. All it would take is one kid either getting hurt or self hurting and it would be a jackpot. I admit I'm not too particularly knowledgeable legally but I'd be terrified that a half smart lawyer would argue successfully that all the anti-bullying and student mental health supports failed because they didn't exist in a real world fashion. Imagine how ridiculous that defence would look: "No, your honour we provided every service possible to prevent the suicides of those worthless queer children we really wished would just kill themselves to spare us being contaminated by their filthy immoral lifestyle." 

I could go one here but I think I've made the point.

This is perhaps a bit over the top  but frankly, I'm not surprised he's being pushed to resign.* The big surprise for me is that he thought Facebook was private somehow.
 

Ok.

Good bye Mr. McCance. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

*Would anybody reading this honestly NOT push him to resign after saying that, especially just considering legal liability? 


 


snowywolfowl: (Default)


http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/28/arkansas.anti.gay.resignation/index.html?hpt=C1

Wow.

I'm going to tell you what I think here. First, here is what Mr. McCance posted on his Facebook site:

"Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers committed suicide. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed therselves because of their sin." (sic)

Well, I'd like to first take the whole religion aspect out of it. I don't care what he thinks or feels there. He has my support to worship in whatever way he chooses. Whether or not you think homosexuality is odious or acceptable you do have a right to your own opinions, feelings and interpretations of theology. I'm not interested in "oh, but God is love! Its a sin to hate!" or "God hates gays" arguments here today because frankly, they are completely irrelevant. Religion doesn't matter here and to bring it in is a red herring to the real issue.

Secondly, I don't feel the least bit offended that he feels that I, along with the rest of those who have no issues with homosexuality, are stupid. I've been called more creative things by local drivers crossing the street,  so the idea of anyone outside his community getting insulted is making a mountain out of the molehill. It's a waste of emotion.

Likewise the idea of him hating to wear purple is also fine by me.  I mean seriously, I can't even get up the drive to do Halloween anymore, let alone wear any specific colours that I just look bad in for a cause. Because of that I can't harp on a guy for saying "no way Jose" to wearing purple for a cause he doesn't care about. Frankly there are bigger issues in the world.

The only issue I have, and the reason he had to resign (or be kicked out immediately) is the damage he does through the perception of authority.  If the local citizen oversight of a schoolboard honestly hates the children they are trying to educate and wishes them to die then how can the school provide effective support and prevention programs? You could use any number of analogies here to describe why his presence is no longer feasible:

           1. If he was called up for jury duty for a gay person's trial and said this he'd be dismissed as a potential juror immediately. And lest you worry that I'm being a bleeding heart liberal here lets forget the defence lawyer, if you're prosecuting do you want this mistrial waiting to happen taking up your time? Trials are expensive. You don't give the defence freebie appeals, especially those based on openly biased jurors.
           2. If he'd said this about Black History Month, and wished his African American students to kill themselves, well, I'm not even sure Gov. George Wallace in his early days would back him up on that.  It would be such a bizarre take on "separate but equal" I'm not sure how it would work. Would it be "we all die, so we are all equal, just you die first so that we can be separate"? I'm finding that very confusing and I wrote the analogy. I can't imagine it for you the reader.
         3. Returning to lawyers again, this guy makes the entire school district the best looking lawsuit bait in the country. All it would take is one kid either getting hurt or self hurting and it would be a jackpot. I admit I'm not too particularly knowledgeable legally but I'd be terrified that a half smart lawyer would argue successfully that all the anti-bullying and student mental health supports failed because they didn't exist in a real world fashion. Imagine how ridiculous that defence would look: "No, your honour we provided every service possible to prevent the suicides of those worthless queer children we really wished would just kill themselves to spare us being contaminated by their filthy immoral lifestyle." 

I could go one here but I think I've made the point.

This is perhaps a bit over the top  but frankly, I'm not surprised he's being pushed to resign.* The big surprise for me is that he thought Facebook was private somehow.
 

Ok.

Good bye Mr. McCance. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

*Would anybody reading this honestly NOT push him to resign after saying that, especially just considering legal liability? 


 


Profile

snowywolfowl: (Default)
snowywolfowl

June 2017

S M T W T F S
    12 3
45678910
111213 14151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 25th, 2017 04:30 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios