Sydnee Bryant - The Modern Muse

Metaphorical Mushroom Hunters

2010-09-02T06:48:00.000-07:00

I thought it was a fake headline. Does anyone read the words “Mushroom hunter 'massacre' claims 18 lives in Italy” and not think it has to be a joke? But yes, it turns out it is true. People are dying left and right in Italy right now because they are abandoning safety precautions when hunting mushrooms. At least18 people died, six of them in a 48-hour period, because they were desperate to find mushrooms in the dark and not reveal the best fungi locations. It’s not hard for me to understand, even though I don’t especially care for mushrooms, because we all have our passions in life. Some people just happen to be passionate enough about mushrooms to risk their lives to get them. I understand that passion but I think it’s crazy to risk your life for mushrooms. But there are obviously those who disagree with me. 18 people died for some mushrooms, and not even the hallucinogenic kind. We all have things in life we are willing to take risks for.

In less than two weeks I will be taking what some people view as a huge risk. I will be moving to Qatar, a tiny country located in the Middle East along the Persian Gulf, to be the editor of an English magazine. There are those who think I am crazy. There are those who have expressed those feelings out loud. Many people have asked me ‘why’? Not to get too philosophical or cliché on you or anything, but to that I say ‘why not’? Why would I turn down my dream job because it happens to be in a country that I have never been to? Why would I pass up the chance to see the world just because it might be scary at times?

I have been working towards my goal of being a magazine editor for eight years now. It really isn’t a cliché when I say it’s my dream job because it is absolutely true. Do I wish this dream could have happened in Canada or the United States? Of course, but life doesn’t work that way. I have been given an opportunity and I intend on taking it. I don’t want to have regrets.

That’s not to say it won’t be hard. There will be times it will be devastatingly hard, particularly Christmas and my birthday. I love Canada. I love my family, my friends and my pets. But sometimes you have to give up the things you love most to live your life without fear and regret. I know I will miss out on things. I hate that I will miss out on things. But I will hate myself if I don’t try. If I fail, then hopefully I learn something along the way.

I also love that I feel relatively safe here most of the time. Canada, for the most part, is a safe country. But no country is 100 per cent safe and no one can be protected all the time; that is another fact of life. The country I am moving to is also considered a safe country. It has a very low crime rate and it has only ever had one terrorist threat – a non-resident suicide bomber. Qatar will be strange and completely foreign to me, so it might feel a little scary at first. But life is not about being safe 100 per cent of the time. That is an impossible goal. I do not strive to live life safely; I aim to live life vividly and passionately. Does that make me crazy, naïve, or both? Maybe, but it also makes me happy.

I guess in a way my move to Qatar is my own personal mushroom hunt. I am following my passion into the darkness to see what can grow there. But those mushroom hunters died, you say. Yes, but what the story doesn’t tell us is how many people hunted the mushrooms and lived to tell about it. We don’t know if those who found the mushrooms and made it back to their homes safely found their lives improved or worsened. We don’t know if those who never went looking for the mushrooms in the first place regret their choice. The only way to know if you are making the right choice or not is to actually make a choice, to take action, to risk everything. A wise person once said you cannot win the lottery if you don’t buy a ticket. I’m buying my ticket, and I’m on my way. Thank you for reading.

Follow the Rules of the Road to End the War

2010-08-26T16:09:00.001-07:00

For the past year I have struggled with the war between cyclists, motorists and pedestrians. I’ve never really known who to support because I’ve been in all three roles. Pedestrians run the risk of being hit by a car or a bike; cyclists have to manoeuvre around both pedestrians and cars; and motorists have to avoid hitting, and potentially killing, both cyclists and pedestrians. How can there be harmony between the three groups when there is so much at stake?

After more than a year of being torn about whose side I am on I have finally come to a conclusion – everyone needs to follow the freaking rules of the road, no matter what they are travelling on, be it legs, a bike or an SUV. Pedestrians, cyclists and motorists can get along without injury or mishap, but only if everyone follows the rules. When the rules of the road are violated there is no harmony, only chaos.
Last weekend I almost ran over a cyclist. I was turning right onto a busy road in Edmonton. It was dark out and he came out of nowhere. I started to turn my car, only to spot a man zipping up the sidewalk on his bike. He zoomed across the street, directly in front of my path without pause. He gave me a thumbs up, sarcastic, I’m sure, as if to say, ‘hey, way to drive, you idiot. Don’t you know I’m a cyclist and you should watch out for me?’ Yes, I know to watch for cyclists and pedestrians. But I also know the proper procedure for riding a freaking bike. It’s illegal to ride your bike on the sidewalk. It’s illegal not to wear a helmet (he wasn’t). It’s illegal to ride your bike across a crosswalk. Cyclists are supposed to ride in the road with the rest of traffic. Cyclists are supposed to get off their bleeping bikes at corners and walk their bikes across the road, while checking for traffic. Cyclists are supposed to watch out for cars before flying out into the road.
I know what it feels like to be a cyclist. I’ve been frustrated when a driver doesn’t share the road with me, or doesn’t slow down while driving by me. It’s hard to be the one on the bike. Cyclists, while great for the environment, are nobody’s friend. But it’s not their fault when they get in the way of cars on the road. Most cities don’t have bike lanes; small towns almost never do. When there is no bike lane, only bumpy pavement filled with speeding hunks of metal hurtling by you, the road is not an appealing option to a cyclist. So many cyclists take to the sidewalk instead. Bad move.

When cyclists take over the sidewalk, it puts pedestrians in harms way. Sidewalks are built for people to walk on, not bike on. Many of them aren’t wide enough to handle both. Cyclists move faster than the flow of traffic on a sidewalk and pedestrians can’t see cyclists coming up behind them.

Pedestrians are also good for the environment. It’s also a great way to squeeze in some light exercise. Pedestrians move at a different pace than cyclists or motorists; sometimes it’s nice to slow down, enjoy the scenery and smell the damn roses. But pedestrians are by no means perfect. They often run across the street when the blinking red hand is telling them not to; sometimes pedestrians don’t even look before leaping out into the fray. My roommate in Ottawa used to cross the street to get to the train without looking first, despite the fact that it was a very high traffic area. Her reasoning was that everyone else also crossed there after getting off the bus and that if a car did happen to come it would stop for her.

Motorists cannot be 100 per cent responsible for looking out for pedestrians, just like pedestrians cannot be expected to always know when a cyclist is coming up behind them at full speed. Cyclists must hope that every time they go out on the road a motorist won’t accidentally clip them, knocking them off their bike. My point is, and I do have one, that traffic rules were invented for a reason. Everyone – cyclists, motorists and pedestrians – need to follow the rules of the road or else they don’t work. It’s dangerous to dismiss these rules because they are the only thing organizing the chaos of the road and keeping everyone safe.

Voter Apathy Alive and Well in Canada

2010-08-19T18:12:00.000-07:00

I have a confession to make: I have never voted. I’ve never ticked off a name on a ballot during a municipal, provincial or federal election. I have never exercised my right to choose who makes my decisions for me for several reasons. At first, it was because I was too young to vote. No one can yell at you for not taking part in the democratic practice before your 18 birthday. It’s the law. Then I moved away soon after my 18th birthday, giving me a free pass to miss elections. I was new to the area and I had no clue I was even missing the chance to vote that year. As I got older, so did my excuses. “Not legally eligible” turned into “too much effort/don’t know squat about politics/don’t want to make an uninformed decision that will affect others lives.”

But now that I’ve spent about two years tracking local, provincial and federal politics I’ve run out of excuses. I now know enough to pick what I think is the best horse in the race. Unfortunately, many people don’t feel this way. Now, I don’t want to judge the non-voters because I was once like you. But I also want to be clear: voter apathy needs to end now because voting is one of the most important things you can do to determine your future.

As important as elections are, many people simply do not vote, for whatever reason. The importance of the vote or the size of the community doesn’t seem to factor in. Examples abound of voter apathy. In New Sarepta, 56 per cent of residents voted to dissolve the village and become a hamlet within Leduc County. However, only 134 people voted out of about 450 eligible voters. That’s a voter turnout of about 30 per cent, meaning less than one-third of New Sarepta’s population cared enough to vote on such an important issue. The same problems occur on a larger scale. According to Stats Canada, voter turnout in the 2008 national election dropped by more than five per cent, resulting in the “lowest percentage of registered voters ever recorded for a national election in Canada.”

It’s not that hard to figure out why many people don’t vote. The process of voting is intimidating and time consuming. And it can be really, really boring if you don’t know the candidates or the big issues in your area. Many people simply don’t vote because they don’t know anything about their government. Others pay attention only to federal and provincial politics while ignoring their municipal government.

Sometimes non-voters are simply apathetic about politics. Part of it certainly comes from a lack of motivation or from thinking one vote doesn’t matter. My generation is so blasé about things that Facebook is actually considering instituting a “Meh” application to go along with the application that lets you “like” someone’s status or photo with just the click of a button. Clicking is easy; voting takes a little more effort. But I don’t buy into the hype that it is just young whippersnaps who don’t give a crap about voting or politics. I think apathy spreads across generations of people who have grown disenchanted with government or never cared about it in the first place. Youth voter turnout is lower than it should be but youth show their political feelings in other ways, such as starting online groups, boycotts or petitions. One needn’t look no further than City of Leduc Alderman Dominic Mishio, who became the youngest elected official in Alberta and the youngest-ever member of City of Leduc council in 2007. I don’t doubt that many young adults like to voice their opinions about politics and things happening in their community. I just know that many of those same young adults don’t express those opinions through voting.

Voting is more than just a government-given right here in Canada. It is an essential process that determines your municipality’s course for three years. The councillors you elect represent you. They decide how your community will grow, what projects will be prioritized and not only how much taxes you will pay but how those tax dollars will be spent. It’s a big responsibility and an often thankless job. The people resilient enough to run for council must be lauded for their efforts.

With the municipal election coming up this fall (you did know it’s an election year, right?) we all have a chance to have our voices heard through the democratic process of voting.

Romantic Comedies Only Screw You Up if You Let Them

2010-08-12T10:00:00.000-07:00

A recent poll in Australia shows that watching romantic comedies can ruin your love life because it raises your expectations and makes you want flowers and candy for no reason at all. In other news, grass is green and babies are cute.
Researchers polled 1,000 Australians to see if watching romantic comedies affected their romantic relationships. The results are hardly shocking. The reason behind the poll is unintelligible. Are researchers running out of things to study in Australia? Yes, the poll showed that the inevitable happy endings that take place in romantic comedies like The Notebook and 27 Dresses lead to unrealistic expectations, such as expecting flowers “just because” or believing that your partner should know what your thinking at all times without you having to tell them but who needed a poll to tell them that? The one thing researchers didn’t reveal is if gender played a role in this poll. Half of the thousand people polled thought romantic comedies inflicted disaster on real life relationships. Polls are done randomly but one would think that researchers would try to get a fairly even split of males and females to poll to reflect the larger population. Were the roughly 500 people in the poll who resented romantic comedies all female or was resentment towards movies like The Wedding Planner equally split gender-wise?

The fact that someone felt the urgent need to poll people to figure out that romantic comedies result in unrealistic romantic dreams is ridiculous. What’s even more hilarious is that the study was released by Warner Home Video at the same time the studio’s romantic comedy Valentine’s Day was released on video. Why release a study showing that people think movies like Valentine’s Day ruin their romantic lives while trying to promote a movie that is full of schmaltzy, ooey-gooey romantic plotlines? What marketing genius thought that up? Perhaps it was an attempt at reverse psychology. Hey, did you know that romantic comedies will raise your expectations and damage your relationships? But, um, watch our romantic comedy anyways, please.

These poll results should be taken with a grain of salt. I mean, can you picture life without romantic comedies? I can, and it’s an ugly, disappointing world. Life without Richard Gere sweeping Julia Roberts off her feet is a life not worth living. Besides, even if we all stopped watching romantic comedies we would still be subjected to unrealistic romantic stories. Romantic comedies are not the world’s only source of romantic overindulgence. The idea that Prince Charming will sweep us off our feet starts at an early age and builds as we grow older. Unrealistic fairy-tale endings exist in Disney movies, children’s books, romance novels, TV shows and songs. In order to avoid all happy endings you would have to go live in a cave without any traces of the outside world.

What this poll really shows us is that half the population of Australia (and probably the rest of the world too) allow themselves to be brainwashed by romantic comedies and then blame those movies for their own unrealistic expectations. Avoiding impractical love stories will not heal your relationship if it is already broken, nor will it change your personality, or your romantic hopes and dreams. This poll also demonstrates that half the people polled are able to watch Sleeping Beauty, read a Nicholas Sparks novel or listen to a Taylor Swift song without letting it warp their romantic expectations.

For the record, I love quality romantic comedies. I saw Valentine’s Day and I liked it. Was it predictable and a tad sappy? Of course. But it was also charming, light-hearted, funny and full of romantic gestures, which is all I really expect out of romantic comedies. I do not ask romantic comedies to save the world from aliens or stop global warming. I do not expect rom-coms, as they are known in the biz, to have all the answers. Romantic comedies rarely disappoint me because I know what I am getting into when I sit down in the movie theatre. The fact that romantic comedies like Valentine’s Day are usually chockfull of yummy looking men that act all romantic and say beautifully scripted things doesn’t hurt either.

If nothing else, romantic comedies are worth watching because of the rare time a rom-com turns out to be funny, moving and unpredictable. The good romantic comedies give us a few laughs, the great romantic comedies usually prompt a few tears and the best romantic comedies help us realize what we really want out of our relationships. If those movies happen to raise our expectations it is only because we are letting them.

Stop Beating a Dead Horse

2010-08-05T09:58:00.000-07:00

Just when it looked like Wildrose Alliance leader Danielle Smith would win the hearts of all Albertans through the sole virtue of not being Premier Ed Stelmach, Smith opened her big mouth on an issue so contentious I haven’t touched it until now. That’s right; she spoke out about the number one hot-button topic in the central region - Edmonton’s City Centre Airport.

Smith held a press conference at City Centre Airport Friday, July 30, to announce that she believes a plebiscite should be held to decide whether or not to close the airport. “We do not believe that the case has been made for closure of the airport,” Smith said during the press conference. “And that’s why we need to have the full debate. If there is good reason for the airport to be closed ... then I have no doubt they’ll be able to make that case in a full and open referendum debate.”
Edmonton city council previously voted 10-3 in favour of shutting down the airport. Still, airport junkies have refused to let the issue die. The vote, which should be the final say in a long drawn-out fight, is not the ultimate word in some people’s minds. Council voted on this issue last summer, after a lot of heated arguments and juvenile tactics occurred on both sides of the airport runway. However, to this day there are groups lobbying for the airport to stay open. Those who support the airport’s closure are mostly mum, probably because they’ve already won this war. No need to beat a dead horse.

It is one thing for Edmontonians to argue about the airport. They are allowed to stick up for whatever they believe is the best move. They live there. Smith does not. Sure, she owns property in Edmonton and pays municipal taxes but doesn’t actually reside here. She is not an Edmontonian. Smith is also not a member of Edmonton city council. That’s probably why Edmonton mayor Stephen Mandel stuck it to her in the Edmonton Journal. Mandel basically said that if he wanted a Calgarian to tell him how to run his city, he would ask. And trust me, he’s not asking. He’s furious. I don’t blame him. The city centre airport could very well be his Achilles’ heel in the upcoming municipal election, despite his tenure as a relatively popular mayor. In life, and especially in politics, there are issues that divide people. The airport is one of those issues. And it could very well divide voters, which is why Smith shouldn’t have pushed herself into the middle of the issue. Does she want to be the next premier of Alberta? Then she shouldn’t risk alienating half the voters in Edmonton. Or, if Edmonton city council is any indicator, Smith shouldn’t risk ticking off a ratio of 10 Edmontonians for every three residents she will please.
Then there’s the rest of the province. The Internet is already full of anonymous people speculating that Smith’s comments about the airport are actually an attempt to kill Edmonton’s downtown revitalization so that Calgary will be seen as the better city. Smith will, of course, always be the “evil Calgarian” to many Edmontonians. To others, she will be seen as the woman who saves Alberta from stuffy Premier Stelmach. But her popularity will spiral if she continues to stick her nose where it doesn’t belong.

I’m undecided on whether City Centre Airport should stay open. I really don’t think it’s my issue, since I don’t live in Edmonton. City Centre Airport is certainly not “my airport,” as many signs suggested during the first wave of protests against closure last summer. My airport is the Edmonton International Airport because, duh, why would I drive the extra distance to City Centre Airport? Plus my private jet is currently being painted so I am forced to fly with the unwashed masses. But that’s beside the point. I may never pick a side in the great airport debate but I will always staunchly insist that the fate of the airport lies in the hands of Edmontonian residents, as represented by the councillors they elected. Council already made their decision in a democratic way. That being said, if enough Edmontonians insist that they want to be able to vote on the airport issue through a plebiscite, then we should allow that to happen, not to make Smith happy but to satisfy the complaints of the whiny few who refuse to listen to the answer they are given the first time around. But every person who votes in the plebiscite should be forced to sign a waiver stating that they will accept the results and then Let. It. Go.

Playing the Blame Game

2010-07-28T10:23:00.000-07:00

Something has gone very, very wrong in the Town of Calmar. About two years ago someone discovered a leaking well near the new elementary school. The well, which had been abandoned to the standards of the day, was seeping sweet gas into the earth. This well was out in an open space and was dealt with fairly quickly. But the town’s problems did not end there. Two more wells were found to be leaking, one of them in a park and the other in the new Evergreen Crescent subdivision. As time went on, more wells would be found. Ed Melesko, Director of Public Works for the Town of Calmar, would later estimate there were a total of 22 abandoned wells in the town. Town Manager Kathy Murphy recently bumped that number up to 26 abandoned wells during the July town meeting. Only three of the wells were leaking but that was enough to cause more trouble than anyone could ever have imagined for Calmar. After all, it’s Calmar - a sleepy, drive-through town where young couples start families and elderly couples retire. This is not a town where people get knifed on the street. Bad thing don’t happen there. Until they do. For residents and town council, the biggest questions still remain: who is to blame and what do we do now?
The wells were originally drilled by Texaco Canada. The wells were abandoned to the standards of the day in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Imperial Oil took over Texaco Canada in 1989 and became the licensed owners of the wells.

Under Alberta law, once a well has been abandoned for a certain period it can be taken off a land title. That’s how a subdivision got built on top of a leaking well. No one officially knew it was there and no one bothered to call the Energy Resources Conservation Board before they started digging. There is evidence to suggest that the developer did find the well and ignored it. That developer has now gone out of business, so no one can officially blame (i.e. sue) him. The Town of Calmar officially has no authority when it comes to wells. Town council is also not allowed to supersede another level of government, meaning they can’t tell the provincial or federal government what to do. Many residents are blaming council for not having all the answers, for not being able to magically fix this situation. But council technically can’t do much. Council met with Imperial Oil executives and MLA Diana McQueen to try to find solutions. So far, no solutions have been offered, at least not any that have satisfied residents. But the town has technically done nothing wrong and so they cannot be officially blamed.

It’s hard to know who to blame for this mess. No laws have been broken. Alberta law allows for this to happen. And that’s why it did. Several residents, mainly those who stand to lose thousands of dollars when they sell their homes to Imperial Oil so the leaking well in their neighbourhood can be re-abandoned, have cried out for regulations that would require abandoned wells to be identified on land titles. This is not a crazy request. It seems to be a rather simple request, one that, if done in the past, could have saved a lot of people a lot of trouble, time and money. Companies like Imperial Oil surely do not want the headache of having to deal with the discovery of leaking abandoned wells every year in different areas as other communities discover leaking wells in their own backyards, as they surely will. This situation is not just happening in Calmar. Calmar simply had the misfortune of being the first community to be outed as a centre for secret leaking wells and the subsequent fallout. During the next decade, there will surely be more communities like Calmar throughout Alberta. And these communities will all have the same questions as Calmar does right now. Who is to blame and what do we do now?

Right now, residents can’t do much but try to move on with their lives, as hard as that might be. But the one thing that we can all do, that all Albertans should do, is lobby the provincial government for stricter regulations regarding abandoned wells. All abandoned wells should have to remain on land titles forever. Legislation should be put in place outlining a protocol for what should been done in situations like this one, including how compensation for homeowners affected should be calculated. The provincial government needs to take immediate action to put in place laws that will not only help homeowners affected by leaking abandoned wells but that will also prevent these kinds of disasters from happening in the future. Otherwise, the Alberta government will be the only ones left to blame.

It’s a Pretty, Pretty World with No Shortage of Rainbows or News

2010-07-21T14:30:00.000-07:00

Recently it has been brought to my attention that I sometimes tend to be a negative person, particularly when writing my weekly editorial. It should sadden me that the public perception of me is that I am all dark and twisty, or, as one reader put it, “whiny”. But really, I’m cool with it. I kind of even get a kick out of it.
You see, this perception of Sydnee Bryant is not entirely accurate. Real Sydnee (as in, not your editorial muse but the person who generally types her columns on a bright pink laptop that would seem more at home in Barbie’s dream house than it would an office) is quite chipper. Perky, even. Sure, my level of bright, cheery sunshiny-ness has diminished somewhat over the years (at university a classmate asked me if I had been a cheerleader in high school. I informed him that while my high school did not have a cheerleading squad, if we had I sooo would have been captain! No one has asked me that question post-university) but I like to think I am not a dreary, drab person. I like rainbows, fluffy kittens and chick flicks, and I’m proud of it. Many of my accessories are pink, the brighter, the better. I can dredge up excited shrieks of “omigod!!!!” as well as the next girl if the occasion warrants it. My long, drawn out point is I’m a girly-girl, and quite a cheerful one at that.

But that’s regular Sydnee. Editorial Sydnee is quite different. Editorial Sydnee gets mean. She hates exclamation marks. She would never think to use a smiley-face emoticon in her writing because a) it is simply not professional, and b) it would look kind of stupid. Editorial Sydnee gets her jollies from politicians messing up, funding cuts to important programs and train wrecks because those are the things that make for good news. These are the things that most people tend to avoid hearing about and pretend didn’t happen. Most people tune out any news of slashed budgets and constitution violations because it bums them out. Most people call this “voter apathy.” I call it voter avoidance. When bad things happen, people usually just don’t want to know. Unless bad news involves a sex scandal, people tend to bury their heads in the proverbial sand.

But people need to know when trains derail and political parties screw over the little people because it affects their lives whether or not they pay attention to it. It’s my job as a reporter and editorialist to ensure that people know what’s going on in the world, no matter how ugly it is.

However, I will leave you with some awesome, cheerful news as a favour to all of you, my dear friends, for putting up with the not-so-cheerful editorials. It’s involves one of my favourite subjects: nail polish. A company called Creative Nail Designs has created a nail polish that actually dries instantaneously. Male readers, this probably means nothing to you. But for those of us who like our nails to be pretty year-round, this news probably resulted in many “omigod!!!!” shrieks. The polish, known as Shellac, has now come to Alberta. Basically, the manicurist applies the base coat, two coats of Shellac polish and a top coat, as per usual. But in between coats the nails are put under a UV lamp, like the ones used for gel nails. This eliminates drying time, making the polish literally smudge-free from the second your manicure or pedicure is complete. No more time wasted sitting perfectly still while you wait for your nails to dry, only to smudge them the second you attempt pet a kitty or grab your keys. I can’t tell you how many nights I’ve spent on my couch waiting for my nails to dry, only to ruin them the second I decide my nails must be dry by now. Of course, I’m pretty chipper so I never let this ruin my day or anything.

This new Shellac nail stuff truly is the breakthrough of the century. Never mind that Canadian researchers found an anti-AIDS treatment this week or that an American ad campaign is encouraging people not to travel to Alberta because of our oil and gas industry, threatening to cripple our tourism industry. Who wants to hear about that stuff? I’m so glad I finally have something to talk about other than war, the crumbling economy and the upcoming municipal elections. Aren’t you glad I’ve filled you in on what’s truly important this week?

Yeah, I thought so.

What's in a Name?

2010-07-14T20:15:00.001-07:00

If residents of Asbestos, Quebec, are still considering a name change for their small town of just under 7,000 people they might want to consider something along the lines of “No Charity, Quebec,” or “Stubborn to the Point of Idiocy, Quebec.” The bumper stickers along would probably be a huge seller. And just think of the license plates. You see, some residents of Asbestos aren’t thrilled about their home sharing the same name as a carcinogenic previously used to insulate homes and hot water heating systems. Asbestos is still wreaking havoc on our lives because a) it’s still legal to extract and/or use it in some countries and b) it is in practically everything. According to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation website, until about 30 years ago asbestos was used in “transportation and electrical appliances, frequently mixed with, and encased in, other materials. Asbestos has also been found in many products around the house. It has been used in clapboard; shingles and felt for roofing; exterior siding; pipe and boiler covering; compounds and cement, such as caulk, putty, roof patching, furnace cement and driveway coating; wallboard; textured and latex paints; acoustical ceiling tiles and plaster; vinyl floor tiles; appliance wiring; hair dryers; irons and ironing board pads; flame-resistant aprons and electric blankets; and clay pottery. Loose-fill vermiculite insulation may contain traces of “amphibole” asbestos.”

Asbestos used to be popular because it’s cheap and efficient. Then, some time during the 1980’s, people realized just how dangerous asbestos was, not only to people living in homes with asbestos stuffed inside their walls but also to those who were working at construction sites or in mines extracting the damn stuff from the earth. We now know that inhaling the particles or fibres of asbestos can cause several types of cancer including lung cancer and that the fibres stick inside a person’s lungs, causing irreversible scarring that can seriously impair lung function. According to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) website, “asbestos is one of the most important occupational carcinogens causing about half of the deaths from occupational cancer.” At least 90,000 people die each year from asbestos-related diseases, according to global estimates found on the WHO’s website.

Extraction and use of asbestos is banned in the European Union. Canada also looks down on asbestos in theory, strictly limiting the use of asbestos within the country. However, Canada still allows for asbestos to be extracted here and shipped off to other countries that still use the stuff despite the known health risks. These countries are mostly third-world countries but economically powerful countries like Japan also use asbestos.

The asbestos business in Asbestos, Quebec, had been flailing. However, the industry is due to receive a boost in the form of a 58-million-dollar loan, which would go towards reinvigorating the Jeffery Asbestos Mine. If the mine operates at full capacity, it will save 450 jobs and potentially create another 300 jobs. The business of extracting asbestos is undoubtedly good for the town of Asbestos, hence the lack of a name change to date.

But the story of asbestos in Asbestos, Quebec, doesn’t end there. The town, which in past years seriously did consider changing their name to something with a better reputation, has not only chosen to continue producing and selling an evil substance that knowingly contributes to cancer but has also chosen to actively shun future fundraisers for fighting cancer. When word got out about the loan Asbestos, Quebec, is seeking to help save their asbestos mine, the Canadian Cancer Society and several other prominent organizations asked Quebec Premier Jean Charest to refuse a proposal that would guarantee the loan. In response, the town of Asbestos said they would no longer hold the Canadian Cancer Society’s successful Relay for Life fundraiser. Relay for Life is an international event that raises money for cancer research. In Canada, about 200,000 people participated in 451 Relay for Life events held throughout the country in 2009. Relay for Life events in Asbestos, Quebec, raised 263,102 dollars between 2007 and 2009.

But in 2011, there will be no Relay for Life events in Asbestos, no victory lap for cancer survivors, no luminaries lighting a path for relay participants. Asbestos’ mayor told the media that he supported anything that would bring up employment in the town and that the town wouldn’t cooperate with people who criticized them or their choices. That means that instead of actively waging war on cancer, a disease that affects every Canadian in some way, Asbestos, Quebec, will be actively contributing to the number of people who will get cancer. Of course, not everyone in Asbestos is to blame for the poor and selfish choices of their government. And yes, the mayor of Asbestos is just trying to salvage employment in his town. But there has to be a better way to do it. Mining asbestos cannot and should not be the only employment option in Asbestos, Quebec, nor is it the only industry that can bring jobs to the town. And refusing to raise funds for a disease that they will be contributing to is not winning Asbestos, Quebec, any points.

Life is a Highway

2010-07-09T15:46:00.001-07:00

Last Thursday I saw something disturbing that I hope to never see again. No, it wasn’t a Canada Day streaker or anything of that nature. It was a guy, probably in his late teens or early twenties, lying down on Highway QE2 South on the thin v-shaped strip of pavement between the highway and the airport exit. He was alive, awake even. He was there by choice, hanging out or, more likely, taking a break from hitchhiking. From not that far away he looked like a pile of rubble, pieces of someone’s tire that had blown out or debris that had fallen from a truck. He looked like something a person could easily run over without realizing that they had hit a human being until it was too late. He was something one didn’t see, didn’t really see, until you were zooming past him at highway speed. Judging by the quick glance I got, he seemed relaxed and not at all concerned about his very dangerous whereabouts, as if highways were the new cool place to relax. All I could think about after we had driven on by this young, unassuming, man was how many times I had driven over similar thin, v-shaped strips of pavement when I had decided at the last possible second that I had wanted to exit that highway. Actually, all I could think about was how many other people had done, and would do, the same thing.

What made this man decide that this was a good place to hang out, a safe alternative to hitchhiking on the shoulder of the highway or in the ditch? Was he even hitchhiking? Was he desperate for some rest? In the split-second I looked at him, he didn’t look desperate. I think he might have even had his Ipod buds in to drown out the noise from the traffic that was whirling by him at breakneck speed. Did this man who decided a nap on the highway was worth the risk of dying simply lack common sense? Or had he simply stopped caring about which side of the thin line between life and death he stayed on?

Is that what this generation has come to? Have we become so apathetic that we ignore our common sense and risk everything? Have we become incapable of making good choices? Or are we simply tired of feeling like all our choices have been made for us? Are we merely an exhausted symbol for the economic crash and all the terrible effects it will wreak on the working class for the next decade? When I graduated from my first university degree, it was 2008. Things were good, especially in Alberta. It was still easy to find a job and people were flocking to our province because we had a lot to offer young, hardworking folk looking to make some cash or build a career. I left Alberta for dreamy east coast Halifax. During my one-year journalism program, the economy plummeted, taking every twenty-something’s dreams with it.

My generation grew up thinking that if we worked hard and got a decent education or learned a trade we could make a nice life for ourselves and be successful. That’s what we were told. So we went to school, learned our asses off and did our best. That was supposed to get us far in life, we were told.

We soon learned it was all just a bunch of crap, or rather, that the old life rules would no longer apply to our new, recession/post-recession lives. At my convocation the speaker actually apologized to my class, telling us that her generation had made a huge mess and that sadly it was up to us to fix it, though she didn’t know how we would manage to do that. That apology, that speech, has stuck with me for almost 14 months. It’s hard not to be mad about it sometimes. We were told we could do great things. All we ever wanted was to be successful at something. But the world changed the rules on us when we were just getting started, making it nearly impossible, or at least financially difficult, to be as great as we had hoped to be. We’re stuck in a world where most of my university-educated peers are happy to get minimum wage jobs or unpaid internships. We are trapped in an economic climate that won’t allow many of us to move out of our parents’ basements until we are married or outlive them. We are stuck lying on the thin strip between success and failure, happiness and defeat, life and death on the hypothetical highway that is our disappointing situation. Most of us have no idea how we got here. And none of us know how or when we will get to exit.

Celiacs Must Give Up Bread but Can’t Give Up Hope

2010-06-30T04:27:00.000-07:00

When I started this column a year ago I swore I would never write about my life-changing battle with celiac disease.

I am such a liar.

People with celiac disease are highly sensitive to gluten, a protein found in wheat, rye and barley. It is impossible for someone who does not have celiac disease to truly understand what it is like; how it changes your every-day life and takes away even the most simple of pleasures, like eating a sandwich. Until someone tells you that you can never eat anything containing gluten again without risking serious damage to your health, you can’t know what it feels like. You cannot understand the devastation, the denial or the carb-cravings.

Oh sure, celiacs aren’t exactly about to starve to death. We don’t need you to hold any telethons for us. But we are at risk of malnourishment. Celiac disease can damage the small intestine to the point where food isn’t being absorbed. This can lead to malnourishment, in addition to anemia, fatigue, bone or joint pain, arthritis, osteoporosis, depression or anxiety, tingling numbness in the hands and feet, seizures, missed menstrual periods, infertility or recurrent miscarriage and canker sores inside the mouth. People with celiac disease are also at risk for being cranky as F*&%. I literally have to sneak bread in one form or another (pita bread, cupcakes, pizza, whatever – it’s all manna from heaven as far as I’m concerned) every few months or else I can feel myself starting to go a little crazy.

It’s not like celiacs don’t have some options. Now that celiac disease has become more widespread – it’s been estimated that one in every 133 people have celiac disease –there is a variety of gluten-free “goodies” available. Of course, many of these products taste like crap. And since many celiacs are also sensitive to other foods like dairy, soy, eggs or yeast, many gluten-free products are still off-limits.

Celiac disease is not the worst thing in the world. It’s not an death sentence or contagious. But it does change your life in a way that most people can’t understand. During the past three years of my (mostly) gluten-free life I have found that cutting out an entire food group isn’t the hardest part. Neither is accepting that my life is different. The biggest challenge for me is not being angry about those things.

I used to think that I had to accept that my disease was permanent. But recently I’ve heard about scientists looking for ways to cure celiac disease through pills, shots and vaccines. Although researchers haven’t made any definite breakthroughs, some scientists believe that we could have a cure or treatment for celiac disease in as few as three years. When I first heard about potentially being able to eat wheat I was overwhelmed with joy. Then I read that many people with celiac disease said that even if a pill that allowed them to eat wheat existed they wouldn’t take it. Who are these people who don’t think life is made infinitely better by literally breaking bread with others? How could they not want a treatment to return their eating habits to a natural pattern?

I would be jealous of these people and their apparent lack of desire for real pastries if I for one second believed them to be sincere. But I don’t; I think they’re in denial or scared to hope things could change. I can’t wrap my head around it, around not wanting a pill to exist, if only so that those celiacs who do want to eat cinnamon buns have options. Because, really, we should all be in this together. That’s supposed to be the bright side of having a disease. You’re part of a group! You have bonds with total strangers that nobody outside of the diseased group could possibly understand! You “get” each other!

I think that deep down all celiacs do want the same thing (a healthy body that doesn’t break down when it ingests toast). But some of us have chosen to give up and accept our fates. Those celiacs are probably the smarter, well-adjusted bunch. But some of us cannot give up and do not accept our fate. We are the optimistic , and potentially crazy, bunch. We will eat our cardboard crepes but only until our magic pill arrives. We will never give up that last shred of hope because if we do scientists might give up too. We can’t let that happen, if for no other reason than my sanity might depend on it.

There is No Honour in “Honour Killings”

2010-06-24T04:25:00.000-07:00

So-called “honour killings” may sound like something out of biblical times but are becoming more common in Canada. The horrific practice of murdering someone and saying it was done to preserve a family’s honour is not only unbelievable but it is also happening more than people think.

The name alone – “honour killings” is a sick misnomer, a slick spin on an evil crime. To take someone’s life and call it an honourable thing, a thing done to save a family’s honour, is wrong. To pretend first-degree or second-degree murder is anything less than a horrific crime is an attempt to dodge responsibility for a crime committed willingly.

Contrary to popular belief, “honour killings” have nothing to do with religion. Nowhere in the Qur'an, Islam’s Holy Book, does it approve of or accept so-called honour killings. While “honour killings” are often linked to religion, they cannot be linked to just one religion, suggesting that the practice is more of a personal choice or a pathetic defence for murder rather than something that any religion encourages. Many people link Muslims to “honour killings” because of the recent cases of honour killings in Canada involving Muslims. However, people have also committed “honour killings” in the name of Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity, according to Muhammad.

Nor do honour killings have anything to do with tradition. Decorating a Christmas tree every year in December is a tradition; taking a person’s life is not. Honour killings are only traditional in the sense that it has become a tradition for people to use “honour” as an excuse to kill a family member when they do something that is not in keeping with their family’s beliefs. Tradition is a word often misused by people to justify doing terrible things. Why, it’s okay if we light this young bride on fire and pretend it was a stove explosion just because she may have betrayed her husband - it’s tradition! It’s okay if we kill our daughter because she wore western clothing. She’s not following our traditions! No, tradition has as little to do with ‘honour killings” as honour does.

Canadians may think that “honour killings” do not happen here. We have all seen far too much evidence to the contrary recently. 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez's murder at the hands of her father and youngest brother is only one of several recent so-called honour killings in Canada. Parvez, a resident of Mississauga, Ontario, was strangled to death in December 2007 because she wouldn’t adhere to her family’s strict rules or cultural traditions. After killing his daughter, Muhammad told his wife, “My community will say you have not been able to control your daughter. This is my insult. She is making me naked.” Muhammad then called 911 to tell the operators that he had “killed his daughter.” Muhammad and Waqas Parvez both pled guilty to second-degree murder.

While some people who commit “honour killings” readily admit to their crimes, there are those who attempt to make an “honour killing” look like an accident. Perhaps sometimes investigators never realize that what looks like a homicide is actually an “honour killing.” Why is it important to distinguish between a homicide and an “honour killing” if they are both murder? While a murder by any name is still a murder, it is important to distinguish between homicide and “honour killings” if only to realize just how big the problem is in Canada and throughout the world.
“Honour killings” are on the rise in Canada, according to Dr. Amin Muhammad, a psychiatrist at Memorial University in St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador. Muhammad is writing a report about “honour killings” in Canada for the federal government. 13 cases of “honour killings” have taken place in Canada since 2002, said Muhammad.

“Honour killings” are also not confined to one country. However, not every country deals with “honour killings” in the same way. While no country technically supports “honour killings,” several countries do allow it to be used as a partial or full defence against criminal charges, including Argentina, Bangladesh, Ecuador, Guatemala, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Venezuela, Peru and Egypt. In some countries, “honour killings” are viewed as socially acceptable in instances of rape or adultery and often go unprosecuted. In Canada, more and more cases of “honour killings” are going to court and being recognized for what they are – murder. While a “guilty” verdict and a life sentence cannot bring back a life that has been taken it does send a message that such crimes will not be tolerated here.

Investing in School Athletic Programs Will Help Stem Obesity Epidemic

2010-06-17T07:17:00.000-07:00

I’m not great at sports. At best, I’m inconsistently good. That is, sometimes I’m awesome, other times I am a disaster.. Sometimes I think I only got to play sports at all in school because I was so tall. I don’t think anyone was shocked when I stopped playing sports entirely in high school. I wasn’t good enough to earn a spot on the team and I grew tired of pretending I was. It wasn’t fair to the other, shorter girls who had more stamina, speed and agility.

However, if I could go back in time and talk to 15-year-old-me I would tell her a) yes, leggings will make a comeback eventually and b) work your ass off to get a spot on a sports team, any team. Team sports are great for individuals of all ages but especially youth because they encourage commitment, team work and active living. If nothing else, playing a sport gets people off the couch for a few hours a week. While the overall rising obesity rates in North America are alarming, perhaps nothing is quite as alarming as the rising child and youth obesity rates. According to the World Health Organization’s website, an estimated 22 million kids under the age of five are overweight worldwide.

Although the role of junk food, genetics and instincts (our ancestors had to eat as much as possible when it was available or risk dying out) play a huge role in the current obesity crisis, the factor of exercise, or lack thereof, cannot be overlooked. Most people, but especially kids, aren’t as active as they should be. Why would they be? Nowadays you don’t have to leave your house to have fun, not with your big-screen TV, computer and Wii right at your fingertips! No more walking down to an arcade to play games or going to the park to play real-life baseball! It’s just so much easier to sit inside your air-conditioned room on a hot summer day and chat with your friends via MSN messenger or Facebook instead of actually leaving the house to see them. Technology is awesome and I’m not trying to knock it because I do appreciate indoor plumbing and everything that has come since its inception; however, technology makes it easier to be lazy. And we are all unfortunately taking advantage of that fact.

Of course, technology is not solely to blame for obesity in youth. There are a variety of factors that seem innocent enough on their own but when added up lead to extra pounds. Today we have more access to news than every before, meaning we hear about all the evils in the world so much faster and easier than before. This has led to many parents worrying about letting their kids outdoors to play in the yard or run around the block, lest a paedophile kidnap them. I’m not trivializing their concerns because it does happen. However, society’s growing concerns about the outdoor world not being safe has led to more kids sitting in their rooms instead of playing dodge ball outside.

People of all ages need to be active. But it is essential for kids to be active because being involved with sports and other recreational activities at an early age can help ensure that children continue to lead active lives when they grow older.
This week I visited Thorsby Junior Senior High School for their colour day, during which the school recognizes students for their athletic achievements. I was shocked to learn the school has six (!) volleyball teams. It also has several basketball teams and badminton teams, in addition to a cheer team and a golf team. Many students also participate in track and field events. It was great to see so many youth participating in sports. There is no magic formula for ensuring kids will be active and remain active. However, team sports really might be the key to ensuring this happens. Team sports allow kids to exercise on a regular basis in a way that is fun, not mundane or repetitive. The problem is many kids aren’t quite good enough to play team sports or are too shy to try out. Sometimes there simply isn’t enough room on school teams for everyone that wants to or deserves to play. If government officials want to make a real dent in the rising costs of the obesity epidemic they’d be smart to invest more money into school athletic programs, ensuring that all kids can start living active and healthy lives.

Fashions Change but Value of 4H Doesn’t

2010-06-13T19:15:00.000-07:00

I’ve never been very fond of cows. I’ve spent my entire life trying to like heifers and steers but they make it so damn difficult, simply by being, well, cows. I grew up on a dairy farm surrounded by many animals, but especially cows. During my formative years I was a little fascinated by cows, especially dairy cows, because I had heard the brown ones made chocolate milk. One of my earliest memories is sitting on top of a very docile dairy cow while she was being milked, pretending to ride it (clearly I needed a pony). Another time, I begged my dad to let me milk one of our cows by hand even though we had machines to do it. After approximately 30 seconds, I realized why milking cows with machines instead of the old fashioned way became a widespread phenomenon.

My fascination with cows ended there. As I grew older and realized just how big those damn cows actually were I started to be a little afraid them. I could never quite put my finger on an actual reason, aside from the fact that they outweighed me. Around the same time, I became a member of the Leduc 4H Beef Club. My sister, five years my senior and a natural cowgirl, was already a seasoned member of the club. My dad would eventually become the leader of the club. My parents reminded me of how they had met each other – showing cows (dairy, not beef). Yes, it seemed my place in a long line of cow-liking-folks was cemented, not by an actual affection for the creatures but by destiny. However, I was determined to excel at this whole 4H thing despite lacking any actual talent for it. At my very first 4H show, I quickly realized why I had a natural instinct to avoid all things beef-like, especially heifers. I got kicked not once, but twice that day. And yes, it hurt. A lot.

But I persevered with 4H and went on to be kicked many more times. I got kicked in the most ridiculous situations. My sister told me it is impossible for a steer to kick sideways. I also discovered that my sister is a liar.

I stuck with 4H for eight years despite all the bruises for a good reason. It made me a well-rounded person. As cheesy as it might sound, 4H really does help mould young men and women into leaders. 4H clubs do more than just show animals or present projects. During my time in 4H I not only learned how to take care of an animal but also to love animals bigger than kittens and bunnies (no one has to try hard to love something as adorable as a kitten). I also learned about responsibility, commitment and hard work. However, 4H’s biggest gift to me was the mandatory public speaking. I learned how to speak loudly and clearly in front of a large audience, how to not fidget or play with my hair while speaking in public and, best of all, I learned how to improvise for an entire minute.

This week I relieved my past, if only for a little while, by stopping at the Leduc 4H Beef Club’s show at the Leduc Recreation Centre. A lot of little things have changed over the years (no uniforms!) but many things have not. The 4H kids still work really hard for many months with their animals to have them ready for the show ring. The effort put in by all 4H members does not go unrewarded in the show ring. And, as always, there was a group of dedicated parents organizing and running the show to ensure that the day ran smoothly.

I didn’t stick around for the Leduc 4H Beef Club’s sale but I know what happened. As the 4H members said goodbye to the steers they spent nine months feeding, grooming and walking they got a little emotional. Some cried. Some hid their tears bravely and tried to remember that their animal is only that – an animal. Because for most of those kids, their 4H steer has become so much more than that to them; their steer has transformed from a drooling, kicking beast of an animal into a companion, friend and family member, or, at the very least, a constant in their life. And even though every 4H kids knows that they don’t get to keep their steer forever, it’s always hard for them to believe the end has come so quickly. That part never changes.

If You Can’t Say Anything Nice…You Must be Online

2010-06-01T04:36:00.000-07:00

People are mean. I don’t mean that some people are mean. I mean all people are freaking mean. Even me. Especially me.

If you don’t believe me, go online. There aren’t enough adjectives to describe just how mean people are on the Internet. People who are pleasant and kind in real life suddenly twist into rude, unsympathetic monsters whenever they have access to a keyboard and an online social medium. And people aren’t just mean when its justified or when opportunity strikes. No, it appears that many people go online seeking a chance to be unkind to others, even if they are total strangers. Especially if they are total strangers.

Look at common social forums such as Facebook, YouTube or Twitter and you will see the meanness engulfing the online world. People post snarky comments about their neighbours, classmates or coworkers in their Facebook statuses, hurl insults at celebrities via tweets, and demean and devalue anyone who dares post a video on YouTube. That girl is sooo ugly. He totally can’t sing. And that’s the tame stuff.
Even informative, seemingly grown-up websites such as online news sites aren’t safe from the hecklers. People will rant about the most harmless little stories on the Edmonton Journal’s website. A friend of mine who previously worked at the Journal once wrote a story about “staycations.” It was a lovely story about visiting petting zoos and berry farms. When the story posted on the Journal’s website, my friend received hate mail, and lots of it. Man, did she get told where to go. All because she recommended that people take their kids to see ponies. What kind of world do we live in that someone could not only take offence to that suggestion but actually be riled up enough about it to pour hate down on a journalist for being pro-pony rides? Who has that much hate in them? Hell, who has that much free time?

Has the Internet made us into the mean creatures we are today? Or have we simply always been this way and couldn’t properly express our meanness to a mass audience before the dawn of the World Wide Web? The pessimistic part of me thinks that we were all secretly this way long before crackberrys and chatroulette hit the scene. Maybe we all harboured these deep resentments towards strangers, family, friends and celebrities but we just didn’t have a proper outlet to express our bitterness. Maybe deep down we’re all just jerks who don’t have anything nice to say but insist on saying it anyways. This could very well be true.

But I think it’s more likely that the ability to shout our shrillest, sharpest words via capital letters to anyone in the whole freaking world using just a keyboard or a smartphone has created a whole freaking world of monsters. And not the cute, furry monsters from Pixar movies. Mean monsters, ones who aren’t shy about telling you that they don’t like your hair or that your shoes are so last season. The thing is, in the real world if you tell someone to their face that you don’t like them or you express frustration with whatever annoying habits they may possess you usually have to deal with the consequences, whether it be a painful, awkward conversation or a slap in the face. In person, there is no way to hide, no way to pretend you didn’t actually diss your friend’s mom. But online, in the virtual world, you can say anything you want, no matter how rude or untrue it may be and you may never have to deal with any sort of consequences. Most of the time, people who write unkind things about others online never have to meet the person they are being unkind to face-to-face. You don’t even have to reveal your real name online, guaranteeing total anonymity (and total false bravado). At the very least, you can pretend someone else hijacked your Twitter account and tweeted that your friend’s boyfriend is a loser. Online anonymity is also virtually guaranteeing a generation of cowards, a generation of young adults who don’t know how to express their feelings by speaking instead of typing. The online world is also starting to create a generation, if not an entire population, of people who feel they have free range to be rude to everyone, simply because they don’t have to justify their feelings online. Maybe we should all start thinking before typing, if only so that we can think of something nice to say.

Photo Radar More Than Just a Cash Cow

2010-05-24T21:20:00.000-07:00

Since its inception in the early 1990’s, few technologies have been as controversial as photo radar cameras. Those who believe in photo radar cite safety as a powerful reason for using the cameras. Those who don’t believe in photo radar dismiss it as a government cash cow that gives the wealthy license to speed. Overall, photo radar has an ugly reputation. Drivers often fight photo radar tickets, saying the whole concept is a violation of constitutional rights because drivers who receive photo radar tickets are presumed guilty and must prove their innocence. Some people say photo radar tickets are unfair because they automatically are sent to the registered owner of the vehicle no matter who is driving the vehicle. If you don’t want to be responsible for someone else’s photo radar ticket don’t let them drive your car! Only loan out your vehicle to people you trust. If someone asks to borrow your car, make an agreement beforehand with that person that states that if said person gets a ticket while driving your car they will agree to pay the fine in whole. If you’re really paranoid or have a tendency to lend out your car to sketchy “friends of friends” then develop a written contract that states who is responsible for what when it comes to the vehicle in question.

While it’s easy to dismiss photo radar as a money grab, it’s hard to ignore its benefits. Generally, money from photo radar tickets goes back into the community. In Edmonton, 15 per cent of the total fine goes to Victim Services, 16.67 per cent goes to the provincial government and the rest goes to the municipality. In Beaumont, where a photo radar program was introduced only a year ago, the money from photo radar tickets will pay for the continuation of the program. The money collected from photo radar tickets in Leduc goes back into the community to pay for other safety measures, such as flashing lights at high-traffic cross walks. If we didn’t have photo radar, we would either not have extra safety measures in place in our community or we would be taxed extra to cover the costs. Under the photo radar system, those who potentially create unsafe driving conditions by speeding are responsible for increasing other safety measures. Not surprisingly, most of the drivers who receive photo radar tickets in Leduc are not from Leduc.

Some people receive photo radar tickets because they don’t know what the speed limit is in areas of town if they are from another municipality. Most people receive photo radar tickets because they ignore the speed limit. We’ve all done it at one time or another in our daily travels. We speed because we’re late for work, late for school, late for an appointment, or simply because we are in a hurry for no reason at all. In today’s ultra-hyper speed society, it’s impossible not to feel like you’re behind everyone else sometimes. No one wants to be at the back of the race or the last to reach their destination, even if the destination isn’t all that great. I understand why people speed. I know why I tend to speed sometimes. But lately, getting someplace two minutes faster doesn’t seem worth it. It’s not worth the risk of getting a ticket I can’t afford, it’s not worth the risk of smashing up my car in a careless accident and it’s certainly not worth the risk of injuring or killing another person. This is why I also understand photo radar. If photo radar deters even a handful of people from speeding, it makes our roads safer. Many people question how photo radar equals safer roads. Ask yourself that question again when you’re driving 140 km down Highway 2 and someone cuts in front of you. Ask yourself that question again when your child runs out into the street to get their ball.

Photo radar makes our roads safer because the slower you drive the better your reaction time. Photo radar makes our roads safer by simply reminding people that there is a legal speed limit and there are consequences for breaking it. The bottom line is photo radar is a system that only works when people break the law by speeding. Therefore, drivers who follow the speed limit don’t have anything to worry about. Drivers who do choose to speed need to be prepared to face the consequences of their illegal actions, no matter how costly it may be.

Selling Counterfeit Cancer Drugs akin to Selling False Hope

2010-05-18T04:53:00.000-07:00

Last week an Edmontonian pleaded guilty to passing off a white, powdery substance as DCA, a common chemical that shows potential as a cheap, effective cancer treatment. He sold it online to at least 65 cancer patients. Many cancer patients who bought the fake DCA stopped their other cancer treatments because they thought they had their hands on something that would cure their disease.

Hazim Gaber pleaded guilty to five counts of wire fraud for selling fake DCA in a court in Phoenix. Gaber sold his counterfeit cure to people in United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Belgium and the Netherlands in 2007. Gaber faces a maximum prison sentence of 20 years on each of the five counts of wire fraud.

Yes, we live in a world of “buyer beware” and consumers need to be especially careful when purchasing things over the Internet. But what Gaber has pled guilty to doing is beyond low. Cancer patients, to put it mildly, are a desperate bunch. They are desperate for a cure or, at the very least, anything that will give them just a little more time. There is no known foolproof cure for cancer. There are no guarantees. Simply put, cancer is a little b*tch who will do what it pleases. I know this to be true because of my dad. He was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 1998, at the age of 46. His doctors told him he had about 10 to 12 years to live because the cancer was Stage 1. In fact, one doctor told him he was more likely to die of something else first before the cancer killed him. He passed away less than two years after his diagnosis. This week marks the 10-year anniversary of his death. I miss him every day.

When my dad was sick, I would have done anything to cure him, as would of my mom, my sister and all of our family and friends. If someone had told us that we could buy a pill or a powder online that could potentially slow his tumor growth, we would have done it, no matter how expensive or crazy it was. My dad tried natural remedies to slow the cancer before undergoing chemotherapy and radiation. In the end, my dad’s cancer spread throughout his body and killed him. It changed our lives forever, as cancer tends to do to families.

Cancer patients hope for cures, for breakthroughs, for miracles. They hope that they will be the ones to beat the odds. When someone, even a stranger in another country, offers them a glimmer of hope, most cancer patients will grab it just in case it really does help. Hope makes you vulnerable to deception. No one wants to be on their deathbed wondering if they could have done more, or if they had only tried that “miracle” trial drug would it have made all the difference. Gaber knew that and he seized the opportunity to profit off of other people’s misery.

The judge responsible for sentencing Gaber needs to make an example of him to show others that selling false hope and fake cures to people is not okay, especially if you are promoting it as an actual drug that has been shown to shrink cancerous tumors during human trials. This is not a case of selling snake oil to gullible hillbillies. Gaber promoted himself as the only source selling DCA and pretended to be associated with the University of Alberta, where doctors recently completed the first successful clinical trial using DCA on five cancer patients. Three of those patients had only seven months to live before the trial began. Now four out of the five patients are still alive, which is miraculous. What’s even more amazing is that the DCA clinical trial was partially funded by private donors. DCA can’t be patented so drug companies can’t make money off of it by selling it as a cancer drug, meaning no drug company was willing to invest in research. Ordinary citizens helped with this breakthrough by generously donating to the U of A’s research on DCA. A second trial is currently underway at the Cross Cancer Institute. While bigger studies and trials need to be done to prove if DCA is an effective cancer treatment, this is still the most promising cancer breakthrough in years. Better yet, if it does work, a generic drug will be created, one that is cheap and accessible to all cancer patients, which will hopefully put an end to scum selling counterfeit cancer drugs.

(French) Instructions Not Included

2010-05-11T20:04:00.000-07:00

Mon Dieu! Sacre Bleu! How do you say “what the hell” in French? You’ll have to excuse me, my grade 12 French classes are rather far behind me and my grasp of the language is a little rusty, beyond the use of the word crêpes (also known as really thin pancakes). All I know is that, while I like and respect French Canadians, I don’t always understand them. And I’m not talking about their sexy accents.

Honestly, I can’t comprehend some of the Quebec laws regarding the French language. More specifically, I can’t wrap my only-speaks-English-and-a-bit-of-Latin brain around the Quebec Charter of the French Language. Of course, I did waste a semester learning Latin, a language that nobody uses anymore, so what do I know? The Quebec Charter of the French Language is basically a list of what must be in French in the province of Quebec. The charter also gave birth to the Office québécois de la langue française, often referred to as the Quebec Language Police. It may sound rude but honestly, it’s just easier to call them the Quebec Language Police. Saying “Office québécois de la langue française” is awkward and long. I prefer my epithets to be a little more precise.

According to the charter, “the Office is responsible for defining and conducting Québec policy on linguistic officialisation, terminology and the francisation of the civil administration and enterprises. The Office is also responsible for ensuring compliance with this Act.” Basically, they really are the language police. The Quebec Language Police (QLP for short) respond to complaints about stuff, such as products, that do not comply with the French Language Charter. As part of their duties, the QLP started a six-year court battle with the Quebec sex shop Boutique Seduction over an American product called a Sleeve Super Stretch that does not contain French instructions. The boutique was eventually fined 500 dollars for violating the charter but has vowed to appeal. However, the boutique no longer carries the product. The QLP have said the fight was worth it, despite the fact that the store still carries other products that allegedly don’t have French instructions.

But hey, this isn’t just about sex toy instructions! Apparently there is more to the Quebec Language Police’s fight to have all sex toy instructions in French than just lengthy, expensive court battles and unenforceable standards. I mean, COME ON people! French Canadians need to know how to use their sex toys and they need to know now! If there are no French instructions on how to use a Sleeve Super Stretch, how would anyone know how to use it to supposedly increase their sexual pleasure? Maybe poor, innocent Quebecers wouldn’t even know that the Sleeve Super Stretch is for sex. Perhaps a poor, innocent, confused French farmer will someday wander into a sex shop and accidentally confuse the Sleeve Super Stretch with an a.i. glove. It’s nice that the owners of Boutique Seduction are thinking about our English-speaking needs but what about the 15 to 20 Frenchmen a year that purchased the Sleeve Super Stretch? IT CAME IN FIVE COLOURS FOR GOODNESS SAKE! That’s just confusing without French instructions.

However, there is more to this issue than just sex toys, as shocking as that may seem. This is about censorship. A government shouldn’t dictate to its business owners what kind of instructions must be in their products. Doing so discourages importing and exporting with other countries and puts Quebec store owners at a disadvantage. As great as it is to shop local, many local stores carry products that are made in countries that aren’t so big on the French language, such as Mexico, Taiwan, China and the United States. If Quebec stores are only allowed to carry products bearing French instructions they will not be able to provide as many products as their consumers may want. Would Quebec like it if Mexico stopped imported products manufactured in Quebec because they didn’t include instructions in Spanish?

Of course stores in every province should do their best to meet the needs of those who speak languages other than their own. We are a bilingual country after all. However, Quebec store owners cannot be expected to limit their merchandise to products that contain French instructions or labels. If products from these countries, or other countries, have instructions in English and Spanish, should stores in Quebec or any other Canadian province not be allowed to carry them? Hell no. I don’t know the French term for it but in English we call that poor business sense.

Female Genital Mutilation Violates Human Rights

2010-05-04T04:53:00.000-07:00

There is a life-threatening practice taking place today that nobody talks about. In the wake of the world’s silence, it continues to happen to young women in countries around the world. The ritual is Female Genital Mutilation and it happens far too often. Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) can also be referred to as Female Genital Cutting (FGC) or female circumcision. All three terms refer to cutting part or all of a female’s external genitalia off. FGM is most commonly practiced in Central Africa, Southern Sahara and the Middle East. FGM is not a part of any religion but is often mistaken for a religious rite of passage. There are currently no statistics showing how many females in North America undergo FGM. But make no mistake, it does happen here. But, as a small veil of protection, there are laws in Canada and the U.S., as well as many other western countries that outlaw FGM. In many African countries where FGM is often performed, there are no laws against it or repercussions for those that perform the crude procedure.

FGM is not a rare misfortune that happens only to the unlucky few. FGM has been practiced on an estimated 100 million to 140 million females worldwide. Each year, three million more girls are at risk of undergoing FGM against their will. Usually FGM is performed on minors, some as babies. Some supporters of FGM say it is comparable to having breast enhancement surgery. However, the girls who undergo FGM are not choosing to do so. They are too young to make that choice. Sometimes FGM is performed on girls as young as two weeks old. FGM is not a surgery to enhance a female’s body; it is a way of partially destroying a female’s body and her mental health. Any doctor performing breast surgery decides that the patient who asks for the procedure is physically and mentally capable of handling the surgery. When doctors do perform FGM, it is usually because they are hoping that if the procedure is done in a sterile environment with actual medical tools the patient will not suffer as much as someone who undergoes FGM at home. Because when FGM is done at home it is generally not done with medical tools. There is no anaesthetic, no team of medical professionals ready to deal with any complications. No, when FGM is done at home it is more likely that a crude, unsanitary instrument such as knife, rock or even a shard of glass is used to remove part of the female’s genitalia. The person performing the rudimentary operation usually has no medical training and may even use the same dirty instrument to perform FGM on several girls in a row without sterilizing the instrument, possibly causing infectious diseases to pass from female to female.

Many complications often arise from FGM, both in the short-term and the long-term. According to the U.S. National Women’s Health Information Centre, women who undergo FGM can experience bleeding or hemorrhaging to the point of death; infection, sometimes to the point of sepsis; severe pain from a lack of anesthesia; and physical or psychological trauma from being held down during FGM. In the long-term, females who undergo FGM can experience long-term problems such as difficulty urinating; inability to have sex without pain due to scars or bumps on their vagina; painful menstruation; increased risk of sexually transmitted infections; difficulty getting pregnant; and extreme psychological or emotion stress resulting in anxiety, sleep disorders or depression. Unlike male circumcision, which is said to reduce a male’s chances of getting HIV through heterosexual sex by 60 per cent, female circumcision has no medical benefits whatsoever.

Until now, many countries have been largely silent about FGM. This week, political movers and shakers in 27 African countries gathered together to try to end the cruel practice that is FGM. These activists gathered in Dakar, Senegal (in western Africa) on Monday for a two-day conference to fight for the United Nations to ban female genital mutilation as an infringement on human rights. 19 African countries, including Senegal, have banned FGM in an attempt to eradicate the practice by 2015. A nationwide campaign from 2000-2005 has been credited with reducing FGM by 70 per cent in Senegal, giving statistical power to the idea that awareness, education and discussion about FGM can lead to the reduction of the practice. The United Nations must recognize FGM as a violation of human rights and call for all its member countries to outlaw the harmful practice to protect the next generation of women in Africa.

Wrap Me Up

2010-04-29T04:58:00.000-07:00

I’m in heaven. That is one of my first and only thoughts as I lie in what feels like a nice, warm bath, only better. In reality, I’m lying on a table in a room at Relax and Renew Spa in Calmar, covered in silicone pads that are sending infrared heat deep into my core.

When Donna Courage, owner of Relax and Renew spa, offered to let me try a InfraRed Body Wrap free of charge to see if it lives up to the hype I jumped at the chance. The wrap is said to help you lose fat inches and cellulite while also reducing joint pain and stress. Formostar, the company that makes the InfraRed Body Wrap System, also claims that a person will burn between 900 to 1400 calories per session. While a little doubtful of the calorie-burning claims, I was eager to find out if the wrap would actually help reduce or eliminate some of my joint pain. I was also excited for the chance to take what is essentially a 50-minute nap in a warm cocoon. Donna keeps a TV in the wrap room at her new location so those who don’t like to nap can enjoy a little daytime soap drama. I hoped to maximize the relaxing potential of the wrap by taking a nap so I brought my iPod instead. Luckily my hands were free so I could change up my music at any time.

The wrapping part of the wrap was different then I expected. Donna told me to bring cotton clothing with to wear during the wrap so I knew that I didn’t have to strip down to my skivvies. Still, when I think wrap, I think of tight pieces of cloth or seaweed bandaged around me, essentially turning me into a mummy who can’t move an inch. Thankfully, the InfraRed Body Wrap is nothing like that. Instead, the wrap involves six silicone pads that are loosely draped over specific spots on your body. Donna wrapped my aching hips, my puffy stomach, my sore shoulders and my stiff neck and then covered me with a blanket. Then, she cranked up the heat, turned off the lights and closed the door, leaving it open an inch so I wouldn’t have to shout if I needed anything. Donna also left a bottle of water with a straw in it on the cart beside my table so I could take a sip of water whenever I felt overheated or dehydrated.

The first 12 minutes were like being in my own warming infinity pool. I did my best to fall asleep, as Donna had said everyone falls asleep in the first half hour of the wrap. I didn’t want to mess up her streak. I also really wanted a damn nap. But, like many things in life, I put too much pressure on my nap and so it never materialized. Donna did materialize after 12 minutes, to crank up the temperature. That’s when things got heated (pun intended). I began to sweat, even more so than before. My face glistened with droplets of glowing…um…sweat (there really is no nice way to describe sweat). I began to panic a little that I would drown in my own sweat. Donna came to the rescue by pointing out the stack of face towels that were already on the cart beside me.

After 50 minutes of warmth my wrap was complete. I was completely drenched in sweat. At that point I understood why Donna had said to bring a separate set of clothes to wear. This is not a spa treatment one should get done before going to work or on a first date. I spent the rest of the day feeling pleasantly warm and drinking as much water as I could get my hands on. I did have a slight headache after, presumably from dehydration. I would definitely recommend drinking lots of water before AND after the wrap to ensure that this doesn’t happen. My hips were less sore, my shoulders less tense and my skin glowed (sweating profusely helps clear out pores). Luckily Donna had warned me that people tend to initially swell a little after receiving an InfraRed Body Wrap; otherwise I would have thought it made my stomach bigger, instead of sleeker. But the next day my puffy stomach was decidedly less bloated. If I could afford the 75-dollar wrap, I would go every week for joint pain relief. The calorie burning would just be a sweet bonus.

Et Tu, Big Toronto-Based Newspaper?

2010-04-20T12:03:00.001-07:00

Journalism is a tricky mistress. It's a craft that demands a lot from its devotees. The art of saying what one means while being clear and concise without muddling up facts with the writer's opinion, is such a balancing act that common sense demands that journalists be able to back up their words with a journalism degree. While earning a journalism degree, students learn how to get both sides of a story and how to ask proper questions instead of what we call "leading" questions (questions that are worded a certain way to evoke a specific response). Journalism students also learn how easy it is to get their asses sued. At the University of King's College in Halifax, NS, earning a journalism degree requires that students take an entire class entitled "How You Can Get Your Ass Sued For About a Million Different Reasons". We called it Media Law for short. Journalism students at King's are also required to take an ethics course, during which students learn about why many of our natural urges are wrong (we're not allowed to call people mean names without probable cause) and why transparency is the key to integrity in journalism. These classes taught us all how to be better journalists. Luckily for us opinionated types, there is a journalistic loophole that allows us to say what we feel and think, as long as we back up our opinions with facts. It's called the op-ed page.

On the op-ed page you can say many opinionated things that not necessarily everyone will agree with. You can be stubborn and insist that your ideas are not only correct but also awesome. In fact, being ornery and in-your-face is encouraged on this page (it's called the opinion-editorial page for a reason). Unfortunately, sometimes newspapers get a wee bit confused about where opinion editorials belong and accidentally slip them onto other pages of their newspaper beside stories about cats stuck in trees, subprime mortgages or who wore what to the Juno Awards (seriously, someone get Justin Bieber a stylist, stat). Even somewhat respectable newspapers like, oh, say, the National Post, sometimes get confused about what belongs where in their normally professional newspaper. Last weekend an article that should have been on the op-ed page of the National Post got waylaid and ended up on the front page instead. Oopsies. No biggie. These things happen. Except they shouldn't. And here's why – when a journalist chooses to put their own opinions into their news articles, it compromises the integrity of every journalist. Every single freaking one. My ethics professor showed our class a poll on the very first day of class that showed only 49 per cent of Canadians trust journalists – that's slightly more than than they trust lawyers but less than nurses and firefighters. That means half of you out there think I'm not trustworthy (ouch).

The article in the Post discusses a certain advertising issue between a certain paper and another, out-of-town paper. The article starts with the journalist praising the paper from another city. I say the journalist says it because the remarks are not in quotes, nor are they attributed to anyone. They are also not an undeniable fact, such as “people need oxygen to breathe and live”. Only irrefutable facts do not need to be attributed in an newspaper article that isn't on the op-ed page. After much gushing, the writer goes on to make several errors, such as saying that the Town of Millet is further away from the City of Wetaskiwin than it actually is (for the record, Google Maps says it is a distance of 18 minutes; less if you don't drive like a weenie). The article goes on to say that a certain newspaper's distribution and readership is mostly rural; it also implies that because that newspapers' office is in Millet, only people in Millet read that paper. The journalist must not have been wearing his reading glasses when he did his research, otherwise he would have found a brightly coloured pie chart showing that approximately 60 per cent of that paper's readership is urban, while 40 per cent is rural. The journalist is also confused about the differences between a weekly newspaper and a “shopper.” Newspapers that belong to AWNA (Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association) need to have at least 30 per cent editorial content. Shoppers don't qualify for membership.

Sure, it can be tough to find the time to fact check articles sometimes. I mean, sometimes more important things, like watching football or thinking up libelous statements, get in the way of solid journalism. But it's important that every journalist, no matter where they work, remember that opinion belongs on the op-ed page and in columns. Opinions and misleading statements have no place in news articles.

Local Passion For Fashion Clear During Fashion Week

2010-04-11T05:09:00.000-07:00

There are those who say the Edmonton area is not a fashion-friendly place. To much of the outside world, we are nothing but a bunch of dumb hicks who wouldn’t know a Birkin bag if it whacked us in the face. Edmonton and the surrounding municipalities don’t know quality designers, have quality designers or appreciate quality designers, some say. To these naysayers, I say check out the bi-annual Western Canadian Fashion Week.

The Western Canada Fashion Week (formerly known as and often still referred to as Edmonton Fashion Week) just finished its 10th successful season, running April 1 to April 8. Attendance was at an all-time high, proving that love of fashion is growing in the area. The shows took place at the ultra-hip TransAlta Arts Barn in Old Strathcona. In attendance were the fashionable, the artistic and the curious, among them fashionistas, aspiring designers, makeup artists and boutique owners. Was everyone in attendance decked out in designer duds with expensive accessories and carefully crafted hair and makeup? No. Style isn’t about how much money you can blow on labels. Style is about many things. Every attendee was stylish in their own way –some subtly, some explicitly. But the people who attended fashion week all had one thing in common: a love of creativity. And Edmontonians (and those from surrounding areas) have creativity in spades.

Aspiring designer Kelly Madden wowed the crowd with her two collections. Madden, who hails from Blue Sky, just outside Fairview, Alberta, debuted her Spring/Summer and Fall/Winter collections at fashion week Wednesday, April 7. Unlike many designers, Madden’s runway looks are very wearable instead of being strange costumes most people wouldn’t be caught dead in. Madden’s Spring/Summer collection was simplistic but classy, focusing on white, black and magenta-coloured clothes. The models all wore loose, romantic curls, emphasizing the classic sweetness of their outfits. Madden’s Fall/Winter collection centered on everyone’s favourite flattering colour – black. To emphasize the toughness of the colour of the outfits, the models all wore high, tight ponytails. Overall, her collection was amazing. Edmonton should be proud that Madden chooses to sell her clothes at the downtown farmer’s market this July.

Designer Kelsey McIntyre, who dreams up her creations in Fort Saskatchewan, presented her Serendipity line at Wednesday’s show during Fashion Week. The show had a very different vibe from the other designers. The models all carried white tree branches as they strutted the runway, creating an almost ethereal atmosphere. McIntyre is clearly a fan of ruffles, which dominated the majority of her designs. Most of the dresses featured very detailed cross-strapped backs. McIntyre stuck to earthy tones for this line – brown, white, grey, gold and light blue. The models wore their hair up in messy curls, adding to the surreal feeling surrounding the line of clothes. Overall, the line was creative, fresh and mysterious, making it just as likely to succeed as McIntyre’s bridal line.

Attending a show during the Western Canada Fashion Week was the highlight of my month. Not only was it something new and exciting, but it also proved a point I’ve tried to make time and time again. The Capital Region is not the place where fashion went to die. Yes, we are not as forward-thinking as places like New York or Madrid, or even Toronto when it comes to fashion. On some trends we might be a little behind the times and we probably have more box stores than boutiques. But we are not devoid of creativity, art or passion for fashion. More and more young designers are emerging from the Edmonton area, particularly from creative post-secondary programs such as the fashion program at Marvel College. And while Edmonton still has a long way to go to becoming the fashion capital of Canada, things are slowly improving. Sandy Sing Fernandes, executive producer and creative director of Western Canada Fashion Week, started the show as a way to promote and support local and Canadian designers while also showcasing some of the best international designers. Fernandes has been credited with starting a fashion revolution in the Edmonton area, giving hope to aspiring designers, artists, models and boutique owners. While fashion week was highly successful, the fashion revolution is an ongoing battle in Edmonton. But it is one we are capable of winning. Edmonton and area residents are more than capable of creating artistic designs and looking good while doing it. Let’s show the world we are not a fashion black hole by continuing to support fantastic events like the Western Canada Fashion Week.

Say Bye-Bye to the Printed Word

2010-04-05T21:28:00.000-07:00

Hear that? It’s the sound of the print industry gasping for air. The weakened economy equals less advertising revenue for all printed publications. The availability of free news online means print publications are losing readers to the Internet. Online news and gossip sites are giving people the information they used to only find in print. Some people question if print journalism in general is going the way of the dodo bird - a beautiful thing that suddenly ceased to exist. Print journalism, unlike the poor dodo bird, certainly continues to offer something necessary to its readers and the world at large. Relevant news, features on interesting people, hits of pop culture and high fashion, along with advice on health, sex, love, dating and finance, all wrapped up in one convenient package.

But surely reading the news online is even more convenient, you say. To that I say, um…valid point. Reading news on the Internet can be a time saver. But it’s also monotonous and devoid of feelings. No one speaks fondly of their morning ritual of reading msnbc.com. Reading the news online is a chore, another bullet in the long list of obligations that are increasingly tying us to our computers and iPhones. Reading a newspaper online lacks finesse. Reading the newspaper or any print publication on actual paper is an art. It requires skill, dexterity, and most of all, time. Best of all, it gives you time. It gives you time to breathe, time to reflect, time to eat your damn breakfast before rushing off to work.

Newspapers are awesome (not that I’m biased or anything). But they’re just one piece of the disappearing puzzle that is the printed word. Another, glossier, just-as-important print medium is in even more danger than its inky brethren. Canadian magazines, as of now, are kind of screwed. Canadian magazines, as stylish and hip as they may be, have always been the underdogs of the magazine world, forever sitting in the shadows of their bigger, brighter siblings – the American magazine. Canadian magazines are in big trouble thanks to changes in government funding that went into effect in 2010. Last year Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore announced the birth of the Canadian Periodical Fund, a new system designed to replace two magazine funds with one streamlined organization. The CPF replaced the Canadian Magazine Fund and the Canada Periodical Fund, both of which stayed in place until 2010-2011.

The new fund brings new rules. Any individual publications will now only be able to receive a maximum of $1.5 million annually, which will negatively affect the top magazines in Canada including Canadian Living, Maclean’s, Western Producer, Reader’s Digest, House and Home and Chatelaine. These publications will either need to fire employees or cut corners to produce content at the same quality level as they currently do. There are at least 56 Canadian magazines that received money from the old system. How many of those magazines will now be funded? Well, that depends on how many readers they can drum up. Under the new system, magazines will need to have an annual paid circulation of at least 5000 readers. Many magazines, including brand spanking new ones, won’t be able to pull that many readers in at first. If new publications don’t receive funding from the government, how can anyone ever expect them to survive long enough to attract 5000 readers?

It is now too late for magazine editors and writers to prove the changes to the status quo will hurt too many magazines. However, it is not too late to save magazines, and by extension, the printed word. The public must demand that in future years the eligibility requirements for magazine funding be changed to protect newer and smaller publications. By setting a minimum annual paid circulation rate, the government is ensuring new, unique magazines don’t stand a chance at surviving. This new system will not only affect magazines but likely will also have lasting consequences for all print mediums. The more people get used to gleaning their information online, the more likely it is that the audience of every newspaper will be diminished. Advertisers will begin to see the printed word as a dying art and pull advertising dollars from all print mediums. There is a myth out there that only older generations read newspapers and only young people read magazines. The truth is that people of all ages benefit from the printed word and must continue to support it if they want to see it survive.

Save the Dogs

2010-03-29T21:13:00.001-07:00

To be honest, I’m not really a “dog” person. I’ve co-owned dogs, I’ve tolerated dogs, and sometimes I have even loved dogs. But at heart, I am and probably always will be a cat person. Cats are low maintenance. Cats don’t need to be walked or constantly petted. Cats usually don’t whine when you ignore them briefly when you’re busy. All in all, cats are easier to live with. Plus, they tend to be pretty and clean, even when you don’t bathe them.

That being said, dogs are great. Dogs are friendly, bursting with energy and full of unconditional love. Dogs are unfailingly loyal. Dogs are eager for attention and affection and willing to earn it if they must. But dogs are also needy. So freaking needy. That’s why it’s harder to be a dog owner than a cat owner. Dogs and cats may have similar lifespans but dogs require more care and attention throughout their lives. While any pet is a big commitment, a dog is probably the biggest commitment a person can make (besides, of course, marriage and babies. And even then, you can divorce a person; you cannot divorce your dog).

Despite their desperate need for love (and really, aren’t we all just desperate for love?) dogs make great pets. They fetch slippers, scare off prowlers and provide an incentive to exercise daily. I do not have a dog (like I said, I’m a cat person). However, when I walked into the back of Genie’s Treasured Pets this week, I was dying to take a dog home with me. They were all so cute and eager, kind of like the animal version of college freshmen.

These dogs also looked a little heart-broken and sad. I think they were sensing how sad their current caretaker Wayne Hill was. Wayne started his dog rescue program in 2006 out of his store Genie’s Treasured Pets. Wayne has since rescued and adopted out 341 dogs. Now Wayne is shutting down his program and selling his store because he is in violation of the Town of Millet’s Animal Control bylaw. The bylaw doesn’t require Wayne to shut down but it does require the town to fine him every time someone complains about the noise. And Wayne simply cannot afford any more expenses. He already spends about 7000 dollars a month, on average, caring for the stray dogs he rescues. Some of his costs are covered through generous donations and adoption fees but much of it comes from his own wallet. Wayne takes in strays and also takes dogs that are about to be euthanized from the pound. Some of these dogs have been abused, abandoned or malnourished. Wayne devotes his time to building these dogs back up into healthy, loving, well-adjusted animals.

Wayne’s devotion to his dogs (there are currently 24 adorable dogs ranging in age from puppy to five awaiting adoption) is truly touching. To others, these may be dogs but to Wayne, they are family. He knows their names and their stories by heart. He has about a dozen scrapbooks filled with photos of dogs he has rescued that have been adopted into a good home. These adoptive families often send photos and letters of gratitude thanking Wayne and his staff for making these dogs into loyal, loving pets. When he speaks about giving up his work with dogs - his passion – Wayne tears up, because it is all too much. He tears up, I think, because he has been beaten down for doing what he loves.

Some of the folks who live by Genies Treasured Pets don’t like the noise of the dogs barking, which is somewhat understandable. However, do these same people realize they live across from a freaking railroad track? Trains go through Millet at all hours and sound their whistle. Yes, there is an animal control bylaw in place, which states, “No animal shall be a nuisance.” One of the definitions of nuisance listed includes but is not limited to, “barking, howling, meowing, chirping or otherwise disturbing any person.” The Town of Millet does have a right to enforce this bylaw. Pets make noise. Pet owners need to ensure that their pets are not out of control. However, in the future, the town should consider making exceptions under extraordinary circumstances. Wayne Hill takes stray dogs in like they are lost babies. He saves them from being euthanized, from being abandoned and forgotten. That is extraordinary. Anyone who is interested in saving a dog can contact Wayne 780-387-2214.

Let’s Talk About Sex

2010-03-22T14:33:00.000-07:00

Spring has officially sprung (on the calendar, anyways) and everyone is breaking out the summer footwear. The Conservative government seems particularly fond of flip-flops. Sure, it is sometimes annoying when the government gets citizens all riled up with its decisions, only to back down soon after. But sometimes flip-flopping can be good, if it is made in response to public concerns. The federal government threatened to change the lyrics to our national anthem, then promised to leave it alone after the majority of citizens freaked out. The provincial government presented proposed cuts to foster-care funding, then reversed its decision a week later after facing heat from the Alberta NDP. Government flip-flops can be great, if for no other reason than it sparks debate. One of the government’s more controversial flip-flops is Harper’s recent decision to include condoms as a part of the government’s G8 plan to organize health care resources for mothers and children in the developing world. Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon announced last week that “family planning” wouldn’t be a part of the initiative. Cannon was contradicted two days later when Harper announced that contraceptive devices would be an option in his G8 presentation this June. Harper made a smart choice by allowing condoms to be a part of his G8 health care plan. Harper’s decision also opened the doors for something that is rare and necessary – an open-minded debate about contraceptives that results in more information being available to youth.

Chronicle Herald columnist Lezlie Lowe recently wrote about Harper’s decision to keep condoms as part of the criteria of his maternal health plan. Lowe wrote that while condoms do need to be a part of Harper’s plan to help underdeveloped countries with their family planning, the plan is “not good enough.” Lowe also wrote about the lack of sexual health advice she received in junior high school and how she contracted the sexually transmitted infection HPV (also known as human papillomavirus) before she was old enough to drive. Lowe is now coming under fire from many of the Chronicle Herald’s readers for her candid honesty. These readers’ antiquated view of condoms and responsible sex is a huge part of the reason that so many young adults do contract sexually transmitted infections (yes, they are called “infections,” not “diseases” now, so brush up on your lingo). Sex is a part of human nature (go ask your parents, they should know). Wanting to know more about contraceptives, sexual intercourse and ways to prevent sexually transmitted infections does not make anyone a “slut,” nor does it mean they will have sex as soon as they know condoms exist.

Of course, many people do not use condoms or other forms of birth control because of their religious beliefs. That’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. However, people do not have the right to shove their own belief systems onto others. Some people believe that using birth control makes a woman “anti-family,” or “anti-life,” as Lowe has been called for her honest portrayal of her sex life. I’ve met Lowe; she is neither. Lowe teaches a course at my alma mater in Halifax. I never had Lowe as a professor but she did spend an afternoon speaking to my narrative non-fiction class. During this time, she never once promoted condoms, promiscuous sex or being a family-hating devil. She did, however, mention her kids. She loves them enough to schedule a hectic journalism and teaching career around them. Lowe has the right to her opinion. In fact, as a columnist, it is her job to have an opinion, just like it is my job to have an opinion on this page.

I’m not going to tell people what to do when it comes to birth control, as much as I want to. I believe in freedom and individual choices. But I also believe in living an informed life. Pretending condoms don’t exist will not prevent teenage or premarital sex. Teenagers (and pre-teens) need to know about more than just the birds and the bees. Teenagers need to know about birth control options, how sexually transmitted infections are passed between sexual partners and how easy it is to prevent sexually transmitted infections. Not informing kids about these things won’t stop pregnancy and it won’t stop sexually transmitted infections. Ignorance about sex and contraceptives is not a sure-fire way to stop kids from having premarital sex. Ignorance is a sure-fire way to ensure that people will make uniformed decisions that can have life-long consequences.

Rituals: Safe or Sorry?

2010-03-15T12:49:00.000-07:00

Everyone has rituals. Some are safer than others. Some are downright dangerous.

My ritual is an odd but healthy one. I get moles removed. Icky, dark brown, sometimes almost-black, moles. Irregularly shaped moles. Itchy moles. Any mole my doctor or I find to be suspicious, really. As a redhead with porcelain skin, I have no shortage of moles and freckles, meaning this ritual could go on for years. And if it must, I will let it.

My ritual is healthy, in the sense that it is preventative. Moles are made up of melanocytes, which can be cancerous. According to the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, melanocytes are necessary for making melanin, which is what makes skin tanned. Melanoma, one of three kinds of skin cancer, begins in the melanocytes in your skin. While many moles are benign (not cancerous), all moles should still be watched carefully. I have now had six moles removed in total from my body. All of these moles were benign, but abnormal, meaning they were not cancerous but had the potential to develop into skin cancer if left on my skin.

There is a downside, of course, to my hobby. Scars. Really, really nasty scars. Okay, so the scars probably aren’t as bad as I think they are. But my two latest scars, each two stitches long, currently look disgusting. Not to mention they still kind of hurt. You know, not enough to actually be painful but just enough to annoy me. As I had these moles removed from my lower leg, it did not occur to me that Capri season was just around the corner. When I complain, my mother reminds me that I am a slow healer. The two scars on my shoulder are from last summer still haven’t healed properly. They are both just one stitch long but they have bubbled up, red and angry, refusing to lie flat.

As much as I might complain about these scars and resent these scars, I still welcome them. I am okay with repeated applications of antibiotic cream to help heal the wounds; I am more than okay with the daily applications of vitamin E cream to help minimize the scars. I accept that every time I have moles removed I must spend a fortune on waterproof bandages to keep my stitches dry in the shower and free from infection. I am happy that I have a doctor that will remove a mole that is too dark, too weirdly shaped or even one that’s just too itchy. I am happy about all of it because the alternative would suck. Finding out too late that seemingly benign mole has morphed into a cancerous one because I left it too long would be heartbreaking. It is so much easier to prevent skin cancer than it is to recover from it.

Still, too many people engage in hobbies and rituals that are bad for them. Tanning comes to mind. With spring break, graduation ceremonies and prom coming up, I’m sure there are a million teens eagerly committing to a ritual of fake-and-baking every day. No one wants tan lines clashing with their 400-dollar dress. I was a teenager when indoor tanning salons became popular. I remember what it’s like. I know there is little that I can say to stop a teen from tanning. But I still have to try. We all have to try to stop teenagers from frying their skin in a machine, with only a tiny pair of little plastic goggles to protect them, because they are still young enough to change their ritual from tanning to sunscreen.

The federal government should ban anyone under the age of 18 from using tanning beds. Smoking is illegal for the under-18 set; indoor tanning is just as deadly. The only difference is that one person’s indoor tanning won’t potentially kill innocent bystanders. There are so many myths about tanning and sun damage that we can’t expect teenagers to make a rational choice, not when tanned skin is considered hot and pale skin is considered to be less than desirable. But hey, you know what else is undesirable? The scars and gouged skin that skin cancer or even potential skin cancer can leave you with. Tanning may make a 17-year-old look prettier in her prom dress, but one day, when the prom pictures are faded and the dress doesn’t fit anymore, all that girl will be left with is wrinkles, sun spots, seriously nasty leather skin, and maybe even cancer.

Firefighters Support Us; Let’s Return the Favour

2010-03-08T20:45:00.001-08:00

There are moments, days where my job is hard. But since I am a journalist in Canada, my biggest on-the-job hazards are a stiff neck and a bruised ego. Still, I like to pretend my job is tough, which, in ways, it is. Fortunately, I am constantly given a reality check and perspective on life thanks to my interactions with people whose job descriptions actually do require them to risk their lives for other people on a daily basis. Last weekend I got to see something rare, beautiful and fleeting, sort of like an Alexander McQueen bag post-McQueen’s death last month. I got to witness firefighters, the hardworking ladies and gents who save lives and run into burning buildings, enjoy themselves 100 per cent. The Millet Volunteer Fire Department held their annual awards banquet Saturday night. I wasn’t really invited, but I snuck in anyways. Risking getting kicked out of places in a humiliating fashion is another hazard of my job. But I don’t put my life on the line every day. These guys do (there are no female volunteer firefighters in Millet at the moment). The awards night was special not only because it recognized the service and commitment of people who actually voluntarily save our asses whenever something goes up in flames but because it was a chance for the entire department to be “100 per cent off duty,” firefighter and master of ceremonies Trevor Palmer told me. “What if there’s a fire?” I asked him, only half-kidding. Palmer assured me that Leduc and Wetaskiwin Fire Departments were completely in charge of handling any fires in the Millet area that evening. It was the only night of the year that this was true. Even though the entire Millet fire department is volunteer (there are no full-time paid positions), these volunteers always need to be prepared for the possibility that they might have to go fight a fire. They also have to accept that they could go to put out a fire one day and not come back. No one ever said the job is easy.

However, most people don’t realize the full extent of the danger a firefighter faces. Firefighters, especially volunteer firefighters, accept the potential dangers of their job. But even the most experienced firefighter might not fully understand that potential risks follow them home. Current and retired firefighters are at risk for developing certain cancers due to the carcinogens they are exposed to in the line of duty. Currently, there are eight types of cancers covered by workers’ compensation for Alberta firefighters. Leduc-Beaumont-Devon MLA George Rogers is working to expand that list to include testicular and esophageal cancers. To this end, Rogers’s introduced a private member’s bill at the end of February that would expand workers’ compensation coverage from eight coverable cancers to 10. The private member bill was originally drafted by Edmonton Castle Downs MLA Thomas Lukaszuk. However, Lukaszuk recently became the minister of employment and immigration, making him ineligible to introduce a private member’s bill. Rogers’ private member bill will most likely be discussed by provincial politicians sometime this month.

The current list of coverable cancers by Alberta Workers’ Compensation Act consists of brain cancer, bladder cancer, ureter cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, non-Hodgkins lymphoma and lung cancer in non-smokers. It is likely that in the future, as more research is done, the list of coverable cancers will need to be further expanded. A 2007 study published in the Oxford Journals online studied the causality for occupation cancers, using the example of firefighters. The study found, “an elevated ‘meta-relative’ risk among firefighters for myeloma, a probable association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, prostate and testicular cancer, a ‘possible’ risk for brain, melanoma, colon and rectum, oral and leukaemia and ‘unlikely’ elevations for bladder and kidney cancers.” As more studies are done, more cancers, such as breast cancer (yes, both men and women can get breast cancer, potentially putting both male and female firefighters at risk for developing it), will probably need to be included in the list of coverable cancers.

The Alberta government may not agree on a lot these days (or really, any days) but they all need to agree to support Rogers’ private member’s bill. Firefighters put their lives at risk for us every day and sometimes suffer awful consequences. Firefighters support us when we need them through their everyday work; the least we can do is help support those who are stricken with cancer as a result of that work. Anything less is simply unacceptable.

Are Sour Grapes the New Russian Delicacy?

2010-03-01T23:19:00.000-08:00

Dear Russia: What. The. Hell. Canada hosts the Winter Games and now you’re trying to take some of our accomplishments away from us with your bitterness? Geez, we tried to be a nice host country. We do our best to be polite to everyone, even when we want to kick their butts. Apparently that is not Russia’s policy.

A Russian website accused the Canadian men’s hockey team of taking drugs after Canada trounced Russia 7-3 in a sweet, vengeful victory during the quarterfinals. Russia, who finished sixth in the overall medal count with a measly 15 medals, should have accepted defeat gracefully. Instead, Pravda.ru wrote a bitter editorial suggesting that the Canadian men’s hockey team must have been on drugs when “they beat Russia so overwhelmingly,” and that Russian athletes were scared to eat food at the games because someone may have drugged it with steroids.

First of all, paranoid much? Secondly, Canada whopped Germany 8-2 in the qualifying round and I don’t hear Germany making any crazy accusations. Pravda.ru complains that Olympic officials “predictably” didn’t ask the Canadian team to provide urine samples during the game even though they “humiliated” Russian skier Natalya Korosteleva by asking her for a urine sample. Korosteleva wasn’t the only athlete asked to pee in a cup. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) performed 2,500 drug tests throughout the games. Random drug tests are a part of the games, not a method of humiliation.

The editorial is not only a case of sour grapes but also reflects poorly on a country that simply did not bring it’s "A" game to the Olympics this year. It seems the Russian media already fears comparisons between the 2010 games and the 2014 games. According to Pravda.ru, “nobody in Russia will miss Vancouver;” the editorial then says the 2014 Games in Sochi, Russia, will be far superior to the 2010 Vancouver Games. Perhaps Russia should see their loss as motivation to step up their game for 2014 instead of an opportunity to hurl ridiculous accusations at a team that truly earned their gold medal.

Team Canada doesn’t need drugs to be the dream team. Canadians are good at many things. We are good at being polite, we’re good at apologizing and we are REALLY good on the ice. The Canadian women’s curling team won a silver medal; the men’s curling team dominated throughout the games and won gold. And unless you have been hiding under a rock somewhere, surely you’ve heard of a little hockey match between Team Canada and the United States men’s hockey team that resulted in a gold medal for Canada. The Canadian women’s hockey team also brought home the gold after slaughtering any team who dared challenge them. Canada won a historic 14 gold medals and a total 26 medals.

All Canadian citizens have a right to claim Team Canada’s Olympic victories as our own, just as we accept the losses as our own. We, as a nation united, cheered for Canadian athletes as they did their best to do us proud. We applauded historic medal wins; we cried tears of sorrow and pride watching Joannie Rochette skate her way to a bronze medal just days after her mother’s sudden death. We were with our athletes, at least in spirit, every step of the way throughout the games.

Canadian athletes did their homeland proud. There were losses and shattered dreams to go along with our victories. But, like true Canadians, we accepted those losses politely and gracefully. Unlike, say, a scowling former Canadian who competed for Australia and got his ass handed to him by a member of Team Canada, I never saw a single Canadian scowling on the podium. Canadian athletes were thrilled to be competing in general; they were ecstatic to be on the podium; and they were over-the-moon if they won gold. The majority of Canadian competitors, observers and media have focused on the good times. Some Canadian athletes who failed to win their events even apologized to Canada for their disappointing finishes. I never heard any Canadians who failed to make the podium be anything but gracious and apologetic. They were disappointed, obviously, but knew that pushing the blame onto others- other competitors, coaches, the venues, the judges- never really helps. Yes, Canada is good at many things, including being gracious whether we win or lose. Hopefully Russia can pick up a few cues from Canadian athletes before 2014; otherwise sour grapes may be the main course in Sochi’s Olympic Village.

Jumping on the Olympics Bandwagon

2010-02-22T22:23:00.000-08:00

I’ve never been a huge Olympics person. I wasn’t against the Olympics or what they represent; I just never really got into watching the games. Like many polite Canadians who remain subdued until provoked, I wasn’t super-excited about Canada hosting the Games. That is, until other countries starting attacking the 2010 Games. Call it delayed-patriotism, call it hopping on the bandwagon– I am now fully on board with the Olympics, albeit, a little late.

It’s disappointing that so many people throughout the world are being incredibly negative about the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games. The British media have labelled these games “the worst ever,” a statement that is not only an insult but also a gross exaggeration. No Olympic Games is without glitches or unforeseen mishaps. To paraphrase one VANOC official, no event this big can run smoothly. The Winter Olympics in particular, during which so many events need to take place outside, can offer harsh or pleasant surprises in terms of weather and conditions. Yes, Vancouver is rainy. I think the Olympics committee knew that fact going in when they chose Vancouver as the site of the 2010 Winter Olympics. I’m sure no one at VANOC guaranteed perfect weather for every event; the only one who can keep a promise like that is God and I haven’t seen him on the weather channel lately. While the weather has not always been ideal during the Vancouver games, it has not dampened the athletes’ spirits.

I can see why media from other countries want to pick on us. I’m sure most other countries assumed Canada would take the insults lying down. Oh, Canadians, they’re so polite. They would never complain about our complaining, no matter how rude it may be. We can talk trash about their games and they’ll take it. Their coffee may be good and their hockey players great but is Canada really capable of hosting the Olympics, eh?

The Games have not been perfect; no one is pretending they have been flawless. There have been obstacles from the very beginning. We could have done without that equipment malfunction during the opening ceremonies. But the rest of the opening ceremonies were energetic, vibrant and entertaining.

Yes, there have been many obstacles at the Vancouver games, perhaps more than some years. The 2010 games started off tragically with the death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili Friday during a training run on what has been called the fastest luge track in the world. The death of this 21-year-old luger is without question an absolute tragedy and should not be forgotten. However, this tragedy is not unique to the Vancouver 2010 games. In total, four athletes have died during training runs at various Winter Olympics. While Kumaritashvili’s death caused a cloud of sorrow to settle over this year’s games, the tragedy does not make the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics the “worst ever.” Instead, Kumaritashvili’s death reminds us all that the Olympic Games are not only about athletic excellence but also about perseverance and overcoming unthinkable obstacles and terrifying odds, even in the face of tragedy.

It’s easy to complain about what has gone wrong during the Olympics. It’s easier to find fault than it is to praise something that most of us are separate from. We watch the Olympics at home on TV and we think we know what it takes to organize the Olympics or compete in an event with the whole world watching. We don’t. Most of us have no clue what it takes to put on the Olympics or participate in an Olympic event. The athletes are under such pressure. I watched the final ice dancing competition with bated breath, knowing that Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir were facing unbelievable pressure to win gold at home. When they pulled off a flawless ice dance routine the pair became not only the first Canadians to win gold in ice dancing but also the youngest pair to do so. That moment was only one of the amazing Olympic moments that brought a country of individuals together. Alexandre Bilodeau won the first Canadian gold medal on home soil with an entire nation united behind him. As the Olympics go on, there will surely be many more moments that unite us all as a country; moments that, as cheesy as it may sound, cause us to believe. These moments, the ones that bring not only Canadians but citizens around the world together, if only for a brief time, should be the focus of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games.

Airport Transit Service Sorely Needed

2010-02-09T04:00:00.000-08:00

Driving to the airport sucks.

There, I said it. You know you were all thinking it; you just didn’t know quite how to vocalize your feelings. Getting to the Edmonton International Airport to catch a flight can be quite a nightmare unless you have a gracious friend or family member willing to drop you off and pick you up. Leaving your vehicle at the airport is expensive and risky, especially in winter. Returning from a week in Mexico only to find your car won’t start is the Canadian nightmare. It can be hard to convince a taxi to drive out to the farther regions of the county because it takes foooreeever; besides, who wants to shell out that much money for a ride to and from the airport?

Figuring out which taxi cab company you are even allowed to use is a headache in itself, whether your destination be in Leduc or Edmonton. Certain cab companies are strictly limited by draconian rules brought on by cabbie wars. The Leduc-based Airport Cabs is allowed to take passengers from the airport into Edmonton; however, the same company is not allowed to take people from Edmonton to the airport. The next time you frantically try to hail an Airport Cab whizzing past you on Calgary Trail do not be offended. On the flip side, Edmonton-based cab companies can drive people from Edmonton to the airport in Nisku but cannot take passengers from the airport back into Edmonton. Passengers usually end up annoyed and confused after paying different amounts to go to the airport and return from the airport. Airport Cabs charges passengers a flat zone fee; other cab companies generally charge a meter rate. However, that may soon change. The Vehicle for Hire Commission will vote this week to approve a flat fee based on the Edmonton zone the ride originated in or to always charge the lower meter rate. The plan, which is generally supported by cab companies, must also be approved by Edmonton city council. If approved, this plan could save passengers some money, although it will not eliminate the confusion of the cab companies turf wars.

The timing of the plan could appear suspicious to some airport travellers. Cab companies are looking at lowering their airport trip rates the same year the City of Leduc and County of Leduc hope to implement an airport bus service, which would cost passengers infinitely less than any cab ride. A mere coincidence? Or do cab companies hope to preserve some of their airport client base in the wake of the possibility of an actual alternative to expensive cab rides?

The County of Leduc and the City of Leduc have hoped to enhance transit service in the Leduc region by offering a bus service between Nisku, Edmonton and the Edmonton International Airport for several years now. Both City of Leduc mayor Greg Krischke and County of Leduc Mayor Marvin Molzan have publicly expressed their commitment to this project. Unfortunately, cab companies can continue to gouge passengers (um, I mean breath easy) for now.
The city and the county recently committed funds for the project in their 2010 budgets, but are stuck until the provincial government agrees to dole out some major moola under the Green Transit Incentives Program (Green TRIP). In July 2008, the provincial government announced they would sink two billion dollars into “public transit investments” through Green TRIP in order to reduce the amount of traffic on Alberta’s roads. However, Green TRIP has faced serious cutbacks and delays thanks to a minor little problem known as the “global economic meltdown.” In November 2008, the government reduced the amount of money to be put into Green TRIP to 1.6 billion dollars. That amount plummeted to 195 million dollars by February 2009. The total amount of money for Green TRIP in the 2009-2010 budget? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. The project remains on the shelf and could very well stay there until the government has survived the projected deficits for the next few years. Unfortunately, it could be 2013 before Green TRIP projects are approved, if ever.

Hopefully, Leduc can continue to move forward with an airport transit service despite the current lack of provincial government support, even if the project is delayed beyond 2010. An airport service bus would lower the amount of airport traffic and improve air quality while giving Leduc residents options, which they sorely lack at the moment. If Green TRIP remains on the backburner, everyone loses. Except cab companies, that is.

Once Again, Censorship Rears Its Ugly Head

2010-02-01T16:27:00.000-08:00

Last week I had the pleasure of reading to Brian Stern’s Grade Six class at Thorsby Elementary School. The school invited various people in the community to read to the students as part of the school’s Literacy Day. I had the opportunity not only to read an excerpt from a novel about pirates but also to talk to the students about how a love of literacy has shaped my life choices and career path. I hoped to instil in the students a sense of passion for literature. I told the students how reading has enriched my life and how words are the basis of my career. If I had had more time with the kids, I would have told them reading is an important way to learn about the outside world and that they should all be grateful for the opportunity to access information in a country where literature, both fiction and non-fiction, is largely uncensored. I should have told them some students don’t have such luxuries. In fact, some students don’t even have access to complete dictionaries anymore.

Students in grades four and five at Oak Meadows Elementary School in California recently lost their right to look up words in the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition). According to a press release from the Menifee Union School District, the dictionaries were relocated to “a central location on campus,” because some parents complained to the principal of Oak Meadows Elementary School that the dictionary contained words unsuitable for children of that age. According to the press release, the children now have elementary-level dictionaries in their classrooms, as well as the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Children can access the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate dictionary only if their parents give them permission to see it. A committee will decide if the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionaries should be returned to the students permanently.

True, the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary is technically meant for college-bound students. However, the Webster’s Collegiate dictionaries were in the classrooms to help students “learn root languages and prepare for spelling bees,” said Betti Cadmus, spokeswoman for the Menifee Union School District. The dictionary definitions that upset the parents of the children at Oak Meadows were of a “sexual nature,” Cadmus said.

Sure, it doesn’t sound like much of a big deal that the dictionaries are being kept from young students. The students still have access to some dictionaries, just not the more adult versions of the dictionary. However, censorship is a slippery slope and Oak Meadows Elementary seems like they could slide right into book-burning territory if enough parents complain about Huckleberry Finn or Slaughterhouse Five. People of all ages need to have access to literature not only because it is their right but because it will expand their minds considerably. Getting rid of advanced dictionaries in classrooms sets a disturbing precedent. Today, the parents at Oak Meadows Elementary School are upset that their children can look up the term, “oral sex” in the dictionary. Tomorrow, the parents might be worried that the literary masterpiece To Kill a Mockingbird, which discusses both rape and race, is too much for their kids to handle.

It is the right of parents to screen what their children read at home, if that is the way they wish to raise their children. School, however, is a place of learning and the reading curriculum cannot be subject to the whims of parents; there would be disastrous results and clashing opinions. Subjects and words that might bother some parents wouldn’t be remotely offensive to others.

Banning dictionaries or books is not the way to keep children “innocent;” instead, it only keeps them ignorant of the facts of life and the world around them, which they must eventually learn. Barring children from looking up “dirty” words in the dictionary is also ineffective in today’s society. Children learn how to use computers at an extremely young age today, meaning they are capable of looking up just about anything online. The Internet is home to many dictionaries, including actual dictionaries and dictionary spin-offs such as Wikipedia and UrbanDictionary.com. Children who don’t have full access to the Internet can go to the library to borrow a dictionary or swipe one from their parents’ collection at home. Censorship is not the answer. Telling kids of any age that they can’t look at something or know about a certain subject is the easiest way to ensure that they will do whatever it takes to find out exactly what is being hidden from them.

Protesting with Pies Just a Waste of Pastry

2010-01-27T12:27:00.001-08:00

How many pies must an activist throw before they can call themselves an activist?

None, because throwing pies at political figures doesn’t make you a political activist; it makes you a jerk. It also makes you a waster of food. Or a waster of shaving cream, depending on your choice of political pie filling. Despite the absurdity of expressing your opinion by smashing a pie in the face of someone you disagree with, or simply don’t like, pies remain the weapon of choice for many so-called political activists. Dave Bronconnier, Jean Charest, Jean Chretien, Stephane Dion and Ralph Klein have all received a pie in the face at some point during their political careers. The act of throwing pies at political leaders has become so popular that “pieing” has become a common term and is even defined on Wikipedia.
The latest victim of pieing is Canadian Fisheries Minister Gail Shea. Shea had just begun speaking at a gathering in Burlington, Ontario, on Monday, January 25, 2010, when an American animals-rights activist smashed a tofu pie in her face. Emily McCourt, a 37-year old from New York City, was allegedly protesting Canada’s seal hunt. It is unclear what McCourt hoped would happen once the pie had been cleared off of Shea’s face. Perhaps McCourt thought Shea would suddenly see the light beyond the tofu-pie filling, renounce her old ways of thinking and tearfully declare that she would not rest until seal hunts were a thing of the past. Instead, Shea wiped the pie off her face and continued her speech. When addressing the pieing incident, Shea commented, “This just strengthens my resolve to support the seal hunt and Canadian sealers. It's unfortunate that people have to resort to this type of behaviour because they are not dealing with the facts of the seal hunt."
Shea obviously realized that receiving a pie in the face is actually a kind of twisted compliment. If someone cares enough to throw baked goods in your face, at least they are aware of who you are and what you stand for. Being completely ignored would be so much crueler than being acknowledged with pie, don’t you think?

Pieing someone is also intended to humiliate the receiver of the crust-and-cream facial. Instead, pieing another human being actually hurts the thrower of the pie more than the person actually being hit with the dessert. Sure, throwing a pie at a mayor, premier or prime minister does send a certain message. It says, “I’m not happy with you but I am too immature to formulate an actual argument as to why you are wrong, so I’ll just throw this pie at you instead.” You know that old saying, “The pen is mightier than the sword”? Well, the same principle applies here. Valid arguments, facts and clear thinking are mightier than attacking someone with pastry. After all, pieing is seen as a form of assault. Shea wasn’t injured from the tofu-pie; however, McCourt has been charged with assault and maybe face jail time. The person who threw a pie at then-premier Ralph Klein during the Premier’s Stampede Breakfast in 2003 received a 30-day jail sentence after being convicted of assault.
And it’s not just pies that are considered deadly weapons. Any sort of political act consisting of throwing inanimate objects can result in assault charges and jail time. When an Iraqi journalist threw both his shoes at then-president George W. Bush, he was convicted of assaulting a foreign head of state on an official visit to Iraq even though both shoes missed Bush. Muntadhar al-Zaidi was initially sentenced to three years in jail but was released after one year in jail.

However delicious they may be, pies are not a reasonable or effective political bargaining tool. It is not only potentially dangerous to pie someone, it must be incredible difficult to sneak a pie past security. When an activist whips a whipped-cream pie at one of our political leaders or fashion designers (both Calvin Klein and Karl Lagerfeld have been pied, although one was accidental and the other one missed the target, respectively) the activist overshadows the message they hope to send. The media and the public tend to focus on the pie-thrower and the pie (What kind of filling? Homemade or bought? ) more than on what the activist was protesting in the first place. There are better ways to express your feelings to the government. The recent Canada-wide protests against prorogation surely sent a stronger message to Stephen Harper than any pie could have.

Google Right to Take Stand Against Censorship

2010-01-18T15:48:00.000-08:00

In light of the recent earthquake in Haiti, the majority of Canadian citizens are not only reaching out to help those devastated by the disaster but also gratefully counting their own blessings. We, as Canadian citizens, may not have everything, but most of us have more than enough. The people of Haiti had almost nothing to begin with, even before the seven-point-zero magnitude earthquake ravaged most of the poverty-stricken nation. The heart-wrenching photos showing the rubble, the chaos, the dead bodies lining the streets, the crying children, say it all. We can only imagine what the people of Haiti are dealing with in the aftermath of this tragedy.

Whenever a horrific tragedy happens outside of Canada- the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the 2007 California wildfires- it tends to fill Canadians with an overwhelming sense of gratitude and relief because we live in a country that is relatively free from major natural disasters and has the resources to deal with such events when they do occur.

But Canadians often take for granted the other, less obvious things we are blessed with in our everyday lives. I don’t have to go to Haiti to know how bad things are, because I can read about it online and view photos of cities in ruin. As I sit here and write this, I don’t have to worry that my work will be censored, as long as I don’t drop any F-bombs. Anyone who wishes to read this column is free not only to do so, but also to express their opinion about it without fear of going to jail. So many people throughout the world do not have these same rights. There are countries where people who question government leaders go “missing,” or turn up dead. There are places in this world where journalists are thrown in jail because they do not adhere to the government’s guidelines about “acceptable” content. Even the advent of the World Wide Web, an unlimited source of information about everything and anything, has not changed this in many countries.

In China, Google Inc. is threatening to pull google.cn, Google’s China-based site, over recent email-hacking and censorship. Google announced it will no longer censor search results in China, in light of the news that hackers in China attempted to access the Gmail accounts of known dissidents and human rights activists. While there is no concrete proof the Chinese government is behind the hacking, it’s certainly not a stretch of the imagination. China’s never been the most open country when it comes to freedom of speech. Topics such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and Tibet are blocked online by what has been called the “Great Firewall of China.” The government blocks online sites it does not approve of, such as gay dating sites. Many newspapers in China are government-owned, meaning writers are under certain restrictions. Censorship appears to be on the rise; China is now allegedly blocking racy text messages sent by users of China Mobile and China Unicom, the two biggest mobile phone networks in the country.

Some of Google’s critics suggest China can live without Google. However, in 2002 when Beijing completely blocked out Google’s main site, people freaked out. Scientists, in particular, argued that they needed Google to do online research. The government caved and allowed censored access to Google. The amount of people in China using Internet has grown substantially since then, meaning the government will likely face increased protests if the country does allow Google to pull out. In 2009 alone, the amount of people online in China grew by 30 per cent, for a total of 384 million users. Many of the new users are certainly the youth of China, many who have recently expressed their devotion to Google by leaving flowers outside Google offices in Beijing following the news that the company may be closing down Google.cn. The company currently has a 30-percent share of the online market in China.

China certainly isn’t the only country that censors what its citizens can say and read. However, due to 2008 Olympic Summer Games in Beijing, China’s growing foreign investment and the sheer volume of people facing censored information, China is now the poster child for government censorship. Pulling its operations out of China is a bold move by Google but it is certainly the right move. The entire concept of the Internet is the very antithesis of censorship; it should not be used by any government to limit the knowledge of its users.

Calorie-Tracking? There’s an App for That.

2010-01-11T23:25:00.000-08:00

Imagine a world where people lost weight simply by tracking their calorie intake every day and making adjustments until they found the number of calories needed to maintain their ideal weight. No juice fasts, no cabbage soup and no hysterical breakdowns at the sight of a bread basket; just simple decisions based on numbers and need. While it is possible for Canadians to one day live in this world, we don’t. Most Canadians (and people around the world) have no clue how many calories they consume in one day.

Oh sure, some of us try to estimate how many calories worth of bread and butter we greedily gulped from the bread basket during lunch or how many hours we would need to spend on a treadmill to work off that piece of cheesecake we had for dessert during a night on the town. But most of the time our desperate attempts to keep within a reasonable daily calorie and fat limit fail miserably. And it’s not our fault (really, it’s not). The sad truth is, it can be nearly impossible to calculate your calorie intake, especially if you eat any meals at fast food joints or restaurants. Restaurants and fast food places in Canada are not required to post their nutritional information - calories, fat content, sodium content, etc - on their menus or online. While some chains voluntarily post nutritional facts about the staple items on their menus, none are required to do so by law.

In 2007, it became law for all pre-packaged food to have a nutritional label in Canada. However, the legislation does not apply to restaurants. Restaurants do not even have to give out nutritional information to customers if asked. And there is nothing consumers can do about it. Instead, we must resign to guessing how many calories are in delicious foodstuffs such as the Keg’s popular honey barbeque ribs (the answer is 1,975 calories or roughly an entire day’s worth).

What’s a poor restaurant/fast-food lover to do? Must we sit at home picking at a homemade salad while calculating how many calories balsamic vinegar contains? (By the way, there’s an iPhone app for that.) Should anyone serious about losing weight or maintaining a healthy lifestyle be forced to never frequent their favourite establishments for fear of overeating? No, hungry, health-conscious socialites must demand more of their government (and their restaurants).

Ideally, all restaurants would volunteer lists of nutritional information on their menus or at the very least, by request. However, we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a world where choosing the wrong appetizer can blow your entire diet and raise your sodium intake to life-threatening levels. Most restaurants and fast food places will not voluntarily provide nutritional information to consumers. The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association created voluntary guides to develop a standard for nutrition labelling for restaurant chains with mainstay menu items. The guidelines were created five years ago but only 33 national chains have joined the program. It’s naïve to believe that all food establishments, particularly fast food chains, will admit how many calories go into every butter-filled bite of every item on their sinfully-satisfying menu unless they are required by law to do so. Restaurant food and fast food, by nature, is less healthy than meals prepared at home because taste and presentation are the top concerns of professional chefs. When an individual prepares a meal for themselves at home, they are more likely to consider whether a 12-ounce steak really needs to be slathered in butter in order to taste good. Restaurant food is a healthy-eating minefield simply because people do not realize how many calories they are actually consuming, and have no way of finding out.

Eating the occasional fast food burger or enjoying a healthy meal in a restaurant is an experience no one should be denied. People deserve to know what it in their food. People also deserve to make informed decisions about their food, which is impossible to do so if nutritional information is not available at all restaurants and fast-food chains. The federal government must introduce legislation requiring all food-serving establishments to post nutritional information on menus and online. Several American cities and states now have laws forcing restaurants to post nutritional information. Chain restaurants that have 20 outlets or more will soon be required to post caloric counts under U.S. President Barack Obama’s health-reform package. Canada would do well to follow the United State’s example for healthier, well-informed food lovers.

Airline Passengers Deserve Protection, Respect

2010-01-07T04:12:00.000-08:00

Anyone who travelled by plane during the holiday season knows there is certainly room for improvement when it comes to airline regulations regarding passengers’ rights. Virtually everyone has a horror story involving either lost luggage, repeatedly delayed or cancelled flights, or sitting in a cramped plane for hours without moving an inch. Transport Canada’s Code of Conduct currently states that passengers have the right to leave a plane that has been sitting on the tarmac for more than 90 minutes. However, since there is no penalty if an airline doesn’t comply with these rules, flight attendants could literally shield the exits with their bodies to prevent passengers from leaving without fear of punishment. Bill C-130, a private member’s bill introduced by NDP MP Jim Maloway, would change that. The bill, based on European regulations, would protect passengers’ rights after a one-hour delay on the tarmac, among other things. Initially, the bill stated airlines would have to pay 500 dollars an hour to each passenger stranded on the tarmac for more than one hour. NDPs, Bloc Quebecois’ and Liberals supported the bill through the first and second reading, with the Conservative party opposed to the bill. However, after second reading passed, the Bloc Quebecois also opposed the bill. The Bloc Quebecois’ move to side with the Conservatives won’t win them any points with voters. MPs should remember the only thing more annoying than arriving at an airport only to discover that your luggage has not is never leaving the airport at all.

The bill was due to come back to the House of Commons in February; however, parliament has been prorogued until March 3, 2010. While proroguing parliament kills pending legislation, private member’s bills are exempt, meaning Bill C-130 won’t need to be re-introduced when the new session of parliament begins. Unfortunately, if Bloc members decide to vote with the Conservatives, the bill won’t receive enough votes to pass third reading. Of course, Bloc MPs may be swayed by the small tweaks that Bill C-130 will undergo for third reading, such as reducing the fine to 100 dollars per hour, per passenger.

The bill, while unrealistic in some areas, has the right idea overall. Bill C-130 ensures that airlines that screw over passengers by over-booking planes would face pecuniary punishment. Airlines wouldn’t be allowed to leave passengers sitting on planes on the tarmac for hours at a time without being fined. Passengers who lost luggage would be receive compensation instead of excuses and shrugged shoulders. Airlines would have to actually treat their passengers with respect and consideration or pay up. The Canadian Airports Council (CAC), which represents “Canada’s Airports,” according to their website, is protesting the bill, obviously. Instead of looking at the bill for what it is- a way of enticing airlines to enhance their level of customer service and efficiency- the CAC sees Bill C-130 as what it should not but probably will be- something that will increase already grossly inflated airfares. Some airlines, such as Air Canada, already comply with similar rules for their European flights, so why can’t Air Canada apply those rules to their Canadian flights? Airlines in the U.S. will soon be faced with the task of improving service or paying heavy fines. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood recently announced that beginning in April, airlines must provide food and water to passengers stuck on the tarmac for two hours or more. Passengers who have been sitting on a plane for three hours will have the option of leaving the plane. Airlines that do not take off or allow travellers to disembark after three hours on the tarmac will face fines of 27,000 dollars per passenger. The fines may sound harsh but considering that the U.S. department of Transportation recorded over 600 tarmac delays that lasted more than three hours in the first half of 2009 alone, it’s time to encourage airlines to keep to a schedule. Transport Canada doesn’t keep track of tarmac delays so there is no way to know how many Canadian airlines had planes sitting on the tarmac for three-plus hours last year.

If airlines are complaining about what Bill C-130 will potentially cost them, it means they have already resigned themselves to not offering an improved level of service. Instead, airlines should be searching for new ways to implement procedures that will ensure they can stay within the proposed guidelines and avoid fines. Bill C-130 will ensure airlines will become more efficient and passengers will be treated with respect.

Charitable Acts Benefit Givers and Receivers

2009-12-21T20:54:00.001-08:00

It’s easy to be charitable during the holiday season. Or rather, it’s convenient to act charitably during the holidays because opportunities always present themselves. Everywhere you go there is a food bank box waiting to be filled with non-perishable items or a Salvation Army kettle in need of some spare change. In thirty seconds or less, you can help someone less fortunate just in time for some Christmas karma. After all, Santa does keep a list.

Many people are filled with the holiday spirit and goodwill towards men (and women) in December. Many companies, organizations and individuals make generous donations to charities like the local food bank or Santa’s Anonymous. Giving back to the community is truly one of the most amazing things a person can do with their time and/or money. During what has become a commercialized, chaotic time of year, donating to charity can often be the only thing that connects us to the true reason for the season.

However, the holiday season can also be an overwhelming time for many people. Charities want people to be able to give easily; hence, all the boxes, buckets and reminders of how great the need for donations is everywhere you go. Of course, no matter how generous a person is, or wants to be, the truth is most people can’t afford to donate money to every charity they pass by at Christmas time. This can often make us feel guilty, like we have failed the needy even if we have helped charities in the past. Last week a friend and I walked past a homeless woman on Whyte Avenue. We had just eaten a hearty dinner and were carrying drinks from Starbucks and designer cupcakes from Fuss Cupcakes. When the woman told us she was homeless and asked for some change, we shook our heads sadly and told her we didn’t have any. She wished us a Merry Christmas, without an ounce of sarcasm. I never felt more like a selfish bitch in my life. I told myself that I had already donated some extra cash to the Salvation Army that week and that I had too many student loans to pay off to be giving all my money away to strangers. Still, the guilt persisted. It’s funny how one uncharitable act can wipe out every good deed done in a person’s mind, much like how one insult often negates a dozen compliments.

But the truth is most of us can’t afford to help everyone who needs monetary assistance. The holiday charity numbers for 2009 are certainly proving that. It’s not that people don’t want to be generous; it’s just a fact that more people are having trouble making ends meet this year. More people are using the food bank, including some of the people who used to contribute to it, and less people are donating. In short, demand is up and supply is down. This will likely result in a potentially devastating shortage for the food bank, as well as other charities. The food bank collects the majority of its items for the entire year during the holiday season; a shortage now means a potential shortage for the next 12 months. It’s not just the food banks that are struggling to fill the need; many charities are falling short when it comes to raising funds in 2009. The Salvation Army set a fundraising goal of 16 million dollars for their 2009 campaign. As of one week before Christmas Eve, they had only reached half of their goal.

It’s easy to look at the numbers – the need versus the available funds - and feel hopeless. However, not every need must be met with money, nor can we meet every need with money. The donation of a person’s time can be just as valuable as money. Anyone who volunteers to sort or deliver food hampers or stand by a Salvation Army collection kettle for a few hours a week is contributing to the well-being of others. A charitable act can be as simple as donating an old winter coat to a homeless shelter or volunteering at a soup kitchen. Every person possesses something or some skill they can share with others, like the hair salon stylists in Calgary who recently began giving free hair cuts to homeless people at the Mustard Seed Street Ministry. People can also help charities by donating small amounts year-round or volunteering whenever possible, not just at Christmas. We all need to take strides towards helping those who are less fortunate then we are.

Should Taxpayers Pay for Private School?

2009-12-17T04:45:00.000-08:00

Liberal MLA Hugh MacDonald recently exposed that several of the provincial government's Ministry of International and Intergovernmental Relations employees charge the bill for their kids’ private school tuition as expenses. In 2008-2009, taxpayers covered more than 326,912 dollars in private school tuition for no more than nine students, all children of government employees who work for the Ministry of International and Intergovernmental Relations. Alberta Minister-Counsellor Gary Mar’s child enjoyed a fine year of education in Washington at the Washington International School, at the not-at-all low cost of 58,726 dollars. Of course, International and Intergovernmental Relations employees must send their children to schools that can provide a decent education. But do they have to pick schools that charge the equivalent of what an undergraduate degree costs in tuition?

MacDonald believes the solution to this outrageous misuse of tax dollars is to eliminate the provincial government's Ministry of International and Intergovernmental Relations department. By removing this department, the government would save not only the money being spent on tuition but also salaries and other expenses, for an annual savings of about 24 million dollars a year, money which could go towards public school boards or hospitals, says MacDonald. Many argue the Ministry of International and Intergovernmental Relations is ineffective at best, evidenced by the downward spiral of Alberta’s international trade. Eliminating the department would provide a quick influx of funds for a province in need of more money and less cuts.

However, at the moment, it isn’t a matter or whether or not the department is doing the job it is set up to do. After all, if we eliminated a government department every time someone failed to get the job done correctly, we’d have no health minister, or prime minister, for that matter. The big problem is the huge difference in what the department claims it spends on tuition for the nine children of International and Intergovernmental Relations employees and what the documents from Public Accounts of Alberta say was actually spent. The ministry claims an average of 24,000 dollars a year is spent on tuition for the nine children of the employees who work at the ministry’s nine international offices. The documents say otherwise. Why the discrepancy? Why allow government employees to spend 15 times the amount on tuition then the ministry has actually accounted for? The Ministry of International and Intergovernmental Relations department does not need to be eliminated at this time. Instead, the provincial government has a responsibility to ensure that in the future government employees are not funding their children’s tuition with taxpayers’ money.

The recent discovery that taxpayers’ money is funding the private education of the children of some government employees has raised questions about who exactly should be responsible for paying for private schools. Almost anyone who has ever dragged their ass through 12 years (13, if you count that crucial year of kindergarten) of public school can tell you it’s not without flaws. Sure, going to public school means never having to wear one of those ridiculous uniforms but the perks sort of end there. Private schools offer students many benefits, the kind of benefits a former public school kid like me can only imagine. The closest most kids get to private school is watching the Upper East Side elite on Gossip Girl every Monday night. Mind you, I’m not saying private schools should not exist. Private schools offer an alternative education to those who can afford it, or sacrifice many other things to afford it. However, those who do not get to benefit from the hallowed halls and superior cafeteria food of private schools should not pay the price for those who do get to don ties and Burberry knee socks every day. Private schools are small and distinguished for a reason: students pay for the privilege of attending these fine institutions. Children whose families cannot afford, or chose not to pay for, a private education make due with the bad lighting and ugly painted walls of public schools. Asking the parent’s of public school kids to financially contribute to private schools is like asking someone to buy the kid next door a brand-new convertible while their own kid only has a scooter. It’s not only mean but also counterintuitive. Taxpayers should not have to fund private schools, especially while public schools are facing potential devastating cuts. Private schools are a choice; public schools are a necessity. Public schools may be less charming then private institutions but they get the job done just fine.

Anti-Smoking Legislation Only Effective if Easily Enforced

2009-12-10T04:54:00.000-08:00

In the past two years, the right to breathe smoke-free air in public is something that most Albertans have come to expect. Our neighbours to the right of us, however, have no such luxury and won’t anytime soon if proposed legislation passes as is. The government of Saskatchewan is currently proposing legislation that would make it illegal to smoke in a vehicle that contains anyone under the age of sixteen. However, the proposed legislation does not include any clauses that would make it illegal to smoke in public areas such as bar and restaurant patios.

Only banning smoking in cars is an ineffectual move. Not allowing people to smoke in vehicles while in the presence of children and tweens is a good idea in theory; in reality, it’s almost impossible to enforce. Children under the age of six who weigh less than forty pounds must be seated in a car seat in the back of a vehicle; safety codes also recommend that children under the age of 12 sit in the back seat of any vehicle. Many vehicles have tinted back windows, making it impossible to see inside. Unless Saskatchewan RCMP begin a smoking check-stop program similar to the drinking-and-driving check-stop program, how will police ever be able to catch people who smoke in their vehicles while their children are present? Sure, cops might occasionally pull a driver over for some other infraction like speeding, then notice an adult is smoking around kids in the car but how often is that likely to happen? Peace officers and RMCP can’t be expected to pull over every single vehicle on the road on the off-chance that someone might be violating the new smoking rules. The proposed legislation simply cannot be effectively enforced. The Saskatchewan government is proposing legislation that seems tough but would actually not change much at all. The only major thing that would change is the sale of cigarette sales in pharmacies. Yes, this would be a good move but it is not exactly ground-breaking legislation. In Alberta, the Tobacco Reduction Act banned the advertising and promotion of tobacco products, effective January 1, 2008. The act also stopped the sale of tobacco products in all health-care facilities, public post-secondary campuses, pharmacies and stores that contain a pharmacy as of January 1, 2009.

Saskatchewan’s legislation is missing a key factor in the fight against the spread of second-hand smoke: banning smoking on public patios. Earlier this year, Saskatchewan Health Minister Don McMorris had said the Saskatchewan Party government was considering banning smoking on restaurant and bar patios. If the government carried through with its earlier intentions of banning smoking on public patios, it would have greater results than merely banning smoking in vehicles. Prohibiting smoking on public patios is easily enforced; bars and restaurants have incentive to enforce the law because owners and managers face being fined if they allow illegal smoking on the patios of their establishments.

Yes, Saskatchewan municipalities can choose to introduce bylaws that would prohibit smoking on bar and restaurant patios. However, many municipalities will not choose to do so because of pressure from restaurant and bar owners. The provincial government of Saskatchewan had a chance to stem second-hand smoking in public and they balked. In Alberta, smoking has been prohibited in all public places and workplaces since January 2008, meaning people can’t smoke on the public patios they once sought refuge on. Yes, business owners and smokers complained about the changes but it didn’t cause a total breakdown in the food and beverage industry, as many predicted it would. Smokers didn’t flee Alberta in droves to find a more smoker-friendly home. Instead, smokers sucked it up and got in the habit of going outside for their nicotine fix, far far away from any minors or non-smokers.

Banning smoking in vehicles isn’t going to stop most people who already smoke in their vehicles with their kids present if that is something they chose to do before it became illegal. RCMP and peace officers don’t have the resources to enforce this potential legislation, making it all but pointless. Seriously, Saskatchewan, the current proposed legislation isn’t worth the time or effort. Instead of wasting tax-payers time (and your own), push through legislation that will actually help save lives. Take a cue from your loving neighbour Alberta and introduce a ban against smoking on restaurant and bar patios in order to truly protect minors and non-smokers from second-hand smoke. Anything less simply won’t cut it.

Should Universities Mandate Students Health Choices?

2009-12-02T20:06:00.000-08:00

In 2006 Lincoln University in Pennsylvania introduced a mandate that states students must have their Body Mass Index measured. Students with a Body Mass Index (BMI) over 30 cannot graduate without first taking a class called “Fitness for Life” three hours a week for a semester. In spring of 2010, the first batch of freshman subjected to this mandate will graduate, that is, if they have met the university’s requirements. The university says the mandate is an attempt to help curb rising obesity rates and diabetes in North America. Lincoln University has good intentions and certainly creative and bold steps need to be taken to promote healthy living to current and future generations. However, overweight students should not be singled out from other university students. The BMI index is not always an accurate indicator of a healthy weight; since muscle weighs more than fat, a BMI reading can be misleading about a person’s health and fitness levels.

The university’s mandate is confusing in itself. Can students take the “Fitness for Life” class at any point in their four-plus years at the school? What if a student has a healthy BMI as a freshman but gains weight throughout their university career? What if a student takes the fitness course, only to gain weight afterwards? Will exceptions be made for students who are physically unable to take a fitness course? What if a student has a BMI that borders on 30 but does not reach that point until their last day of classes? Will university representatives be standing by with measuring tapes and scales on the last day of exams to measure each and every students’ BMI to ensure they are fit enough to graduate?

The mandate also makes the mistake of only targeting students in their final year of university. Prior to this, researchers studying the effects of university life on students have generally looked at students in their first year of university. For years, university students and researchers alike have been obsessed with the idea of the “Freshman 15,” an urban myth that first-year university students gain an average of 15 pounds during their first year of post-secondary education. First-year students, many of which are away from home and their parents’ dining room tables for the first time, tend to pack on the pounds due to many factors, including an increase in greasy food, midnight snack runs, keg stands and unprecedented levels of stress. University students also don’t enough sleep due to too much studying or too much partying, or an ambitious combination of the two factors. Many students, especially those living in dorm rooms, become accustomed to a wardrobe of sweatpants and Lu Lu Lemon yoga pants because studying is painful enough without attempting to do it in skinny jeans. Sweatpants, while comfortable and convenient, often make it difficult to tell when one has gained a few pounds; jeans are much less forgiving. However, despite many students’ attempts to drink their body weight in tequila, the Freshman 15 remains a myth. In 2006, researchers at the University of Guelph did a study that debunked the Freshman 15 myth; their research showed, on average, female university students only gain five pounds during freshman year. Male university students gain slightly more than female students, researchers found.

What studies have not shown is how much weight students gain throughout their entire four-plus years at university. Lincoln University should focus on the health and well-being of all of its students, not just its seniors. The gluttonous sins committed by many freshmen can become lifelong habits if not corrected early on. Universities have a real opportunity to encourage students to lead healthier lifestyles. It’s great Lincoln University offers a course that can help students achieve their fitness goals, or learn tips for healthy eating. However, people that are forced to take part in a fitness class against their will are not likely to stick with the healthy habits they learn during the course. The goal of the course should be to teach students healthy, active habits that they will continue for the rest of their lives, not to tell them they must lose weight in order to graduate. If Lincoln University is serious about helping students lead healthier lifestyles, they should make their “Fitness for Life” course a requirement for every student, not just for overweight students. If the university isn’t willing to make the course mandatory for all students then the “Fitness for Life” should be an option for all students, regardless of size.

Homework Exists for a Reason, Despite Some Parents’ Beliefs

2009-11-26T04:40:00.000-08:00

There are many things in a child’s life that are supposed to be non-negotiable. Bed times, eating vegetables and baths all come to mind. But one family in Calgary has decided to spare their children the horrors of one life’s most unquestionable duties- homework. Tom and Shelli Milley recently signed an agreement with their children’s school that states Spencer, 11, and Brittany, 10, do not have to complete, hand in, or be marked on any homework assignments. The entire Milley family, along with the kids’ teachers, signed the no-homework contract after the family lobbied the school for two years. Tom Milley claims that thanks to all of their children’s extra-curricular activities and family chores such as making supper, the family simply dreaded working on school assignments in the evening. Apparently the Milley’s have never looked into the definition of “extra-curricular” activities; otherwise, they would know that things such as speedskating practice and music lessons are supposed to be in addition to activities required by law, like, oh say, school.

Yes, homework can require a lot of time and energy from both parents and students. Yes, it is important that children have well-rounded lifestyles that include healthy activities such as sports or dance lessons. Of course every parent wants their child to possess some life skills other than being able to count and say the alphabet. But there are other, more responsible options, than simply eliminating mandatory homework from a child’s life. Children who show enormous potential in one specific activity such as music or hockey can attend special schools that help students excel while balancing school and activities. Kids who have trouble fitting in dozens of extra-curricular activities alongside school work might consider home-schooling. If parents find that their children often struggle with homework, they may want to hire a tutor for their child. But allowing children to take the easy path in school by not completing homework that will increase their knowledge and prepare them for future schooling is not acceptable. It’s lazy and sets an ugly precedent for other students. In fact, it even sets an ugly precedent for Spencer and Brittany. Spencer was nine years old and Brittany was eight years old when their parents started lobbying the school to allow their children to be exempt from homework. How much homework could an eight-year-old kid have possibly had? What extra-curricular activity trumps learning in the Milley family? Will this no-homework agreement continue on when Spencer and Brittany are in high school? Tom and Shelli Milley say they will quiz their kids at home to help them prepare for tests. However, if the family cannot find time to do school assignments now, what will motivate the kids and parents to do non-required learning at home now that they don’t have to do it?

How will these children deal with the mountains of homework they will have to scale in college or university (assuming those slackers even make it to a post-secondary institution)? All university programs require a great deal of studying, writing and reading. A general rule of thumb for university students is to expect to do at least three hours of homework for every hour of class you have a week. Full-time post-secondary students take at least four, if not five, classes a semester. That equals about fifteen hours of class a week, not including time spent in lab classes. Post-secondary students with a full class load can expect about six-and-a-half hours of homework a day, seven days a week. Imagine going from little to no homework in high school to being buried under books for 390 minutes every day for four years! Homework, as annoying as it can be, serves a purpose. Not only does working on math problems, learning geometry and reading books on a regular basis help students learn, it also prepares them for future studies. What if students have no intention of going on to post-secondary education once they are finished high school, you say? Learning new skills and taking courses is often required for many jobs, even those that do not require a university education. Besides, what 10-year-old kid can rule out post-secondary school for certain? Studying hard in school and learning at an early age leaves doors open for kids. Telling kids it is okay to stop doing something, such as homework, because it is an inconvenience not only teaches kids bad work habits but also slams doors shut in the future. Children should never be taught that learning should be negotiable.

Holiday Madness? You Mean Holiday Magic!

2009-11-19T04:00:00.000-08:00

It always starts innocently enough. You start November by trying an eggnog latte from Starbucks. Then you notice holiday gift wrap is on sale and you pick some up. After all, what’s the harm in starting your Christmas or Hanukkah shopping a little early? But before you know it, you’re listening to Mariah Carey’s Christmas CD on repeat while downing chocolate liqueurs and hanging Christmas stockings. It’s official: you’ve started the holiday season.

Don’t worry; it’s not your fault. After all, how is anyone supposed to resist the magic of the holiday season with reminders of all things Christmas-y everywhere you go? Most stores start putting out their holiday merchandise at the earliest possible moment. Take a quick stroll through Walmart on the evening of October 31 and you are likely to find equal parts Halloween and Christmas merchandise. Suddenly shoppers have a choice: either stock up on discounted Halloween candy for next year, or get a head-start on Christmas shopping. After all, Christmas is right around the corner. And as appealing as thrusting your way through a crowd of your fellow desperate, frenzied shoppers at West Edmonton Mall the week before Christmas sounds, it can be very relaxing to finish your shopping early. Besides, the holiday rush is not confined only to the week before Christmas at West Edmonton Mall and other shopping centres. The malls get claustrophobic at least one month before Christmas, especially on weekends.

Starbucks is next on the list of chains that squeeze as much holiday cheer into the winter as possible. Starbucks begins offering their Christmas drink items and merchandise in the first week of November every year. Not only that, but they even decorate! After all, would you know Christmas is coming if there wasn’t a red and white Starbucks drink menu board to remind you every time you need caffeine?

Holiday parades also often come early, with the Toronto Santa Claus parade happening in mid-November each year. Edmonton requested Santa’s presence on November 14 this year during the Christmas on the Square Holiday Light Up. The Leduc Santa Claus parade will be spreading holiday magic down Main Street November 27 this year. However, the Village of Thorsby is showing some restraint by waiting until the beginning of December to celebrate Christmas in the Village. Isn’t it a little early for Santa to be making the rounds, you say? Shouldn’t Santa and his elves be hard at work in the North Pole non-stop until Christmas Eve? Hell no! The undeniable bonus of having most outdoor celebrations outdoor in November and December is that it is generally actually warm enough to attend said events, particularly this year. Sure, it’s unfortunate that a nice mist of sparkling white snow didn’t grace the streets of Edmonton for this year’s Christmas on the Square Holiday Light Up, but I doubt many folks are complaining. Not having snow is a small price to pay for not losing any bodily appendages to frostbite while standing outside hoping for a glimpse of Santa.

Holiday madness, as overwhelming as it can be, is really just holiday magic in a frenzied disguise. I love starting the holidays at least one month before Christmas officially happens. I usually don’t mean for it to happen, but when it does I embrace it. As crazy as it sounds, something as small as seeing that Starbucks holiday-themed drink board or eating a gingerbread man always brings a spark of Christmas spirit to my heart and usually gives birth to a frenzy of early holiday shopping. I, along with many other suckers, am a marketing executive’s dream come true. But I don’t care, because I love it all. I love the light-up reindeer chilling out on people’s lawns. I love that it becomes sociably acceptable to add Bailey’s to a beverage at any time during the day. I love picking out the perfect gifts for family and friends. I love Christmas carols and candy canes. I love the spirit of giving that truly does envelop people throughout the world. Of course, many people think it’s ridiculous to begin the holiday season in November and despise those who insist on starting the merriment as soon as their Halloween costumes are put away. But everyone should embrace the holiday season, whenever it begins. Reminders of Christmas, Hanukkah or Chrismukkah are already everywhere. The only way to avoid early holiday cheer is to hide in your house until December 24. So choose to embrace the holiday season and start spreading the joy early!

Conservative Party Afraid of Change

2009-11-12T05:00:00.000-08:00

Change is good. Unless, of course, you happen to be a Conservative Party convention delegate. On November 7, 2009, 77 per cent of Conservative convention delegates cast a vote in favour of keeping Premier Ed Stelmach in power by voting against holding a provincial leadership election. I was shocked at the results. I shouldn’t have been. Of course the Conservative Party stood by Stelmach. To do otherwise would be to turn their back on their party, their policies and their political belief systems. However, by supporting an ineffectual, uncharismatic and increasing unpopular premier, the Conservative Party has turned its back on the province of Alberta. The Conservative party may need Stelmach, but the citizens of Alberta could certainly do without him.

Voting to hold a provincial leadership election would have been the same as Conservatives admitting that their party is in trouble. If Conservative Party delegates had turned their back on Stelmach, it could have been the kiss of death for a party that is in desperate need of a face-lift. If the Conservatives had chosen to vote for a chance to elect a new leader, they would have confirmed what the rest of us already know: that the government of Alberta is broken and in desperate need of change. That much-needed change could have potentially come from the Conservative Party if they had made the brave choice to elect a new leader. However, since Stelmach remains at the helm of the Conservatives, it is Danielle Smith, the new leader of the Wildrose Alliance Party, who will have the opportunity to be the change Albertans desperately crave. Smith is charismatic, young and bold; in other words, everything that Stelmach is not. Conservative convention delegates chose to save the Conservative party rather than please voters by getting rid of a party leader few people are happy with. Ironically, this may lead to the demise of the Conservative party in Alberta anyways. Many Albertans may vote for the Wildrose Alliance Party simply because they want a government that is different from the current one, much like when Americans overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because they wanted a leader who was different from George W. Bush in so many ways. Is this a smart voting strategy? Perhaps not but it is what will happen come election time.

Conservative party members knew that if they did not show their support for Stelmach, it would send a very strong message not just to their party leader but to all Albertans, along with the rest of Canada. If the Conservatives do not believe in their leader, why should the rest of Alberta? But Conservatives did choose to “believe” in Stelmach and they will need to live with the consequences of that decision, as will the rest of us. We will all have to deal with the fact that we live in a province that chose to give H1N1 vaccination shots to professional hockey teams before all high-risk citizens could be vaccinated. We will have to accept that we have a premier who did not ask for the resignation of Alberta’s Health Minister Ron Liepert but allowed two Alberta Health Services staff members to be fired for something that was likely not entirely their decision. We will have to settle for a health care system that is falling apart and a disorganized health minister that cannot settle on a clear vaccination plan for Albertans.
Albertans put their faith in Stelmach and the Conservative Party during the 2008 provincial general election. Less than two years later, many Albertans are questioning Stelmach’s leadership capabilities and the shelf-life of the Conservative Party in Alberta. Any party that has been in power in one place for 38 years risks becoming stagnant and inefficient. Younger, hipper government parties always have the opportunity to swoop in and steal the hearts and votes of citizens. Between the recession, the deficit, H1N1 and the global climate crisis, the Conservative Party (and all political parties) certainly has some major hurdles to jump over gracefully in order to prove they deserve our support.

The Conservative Party chose to keep Stelmach in power; this we cannot change. But thanks to democracy, freedom of choice and rational thought, we can choose to end the madness in 2012, during the next provincial general election. Of course, plenty can change in two years. If the Conservative Party wants to retain power in Alberta, those changes must include booting Stelmach and finding a party leader with a little more panache.

Legalize the Sex Trade to Keep Women on Streets Safe

2009-11-05T06:07:00.000-08:00

People keep disappearing. Women, in particular, go missing all the time, never to be seen again. It seems inevitable. In Canada, over 1500 women are officially considered missing persons by the police, according to a recent article in the Edmonton Journal. But data tells us that a certain segment of the population goes missing more often than others. Sex trade workers, or “prostitutes,” as they are more vulgarly known, are at high risk for disappearing because they are one of society’s most vulnerable sectors. Edmonton is a prime example of what can go wrong when sex trade workers do not have advocates on their side looking out for those who have to live on the street and encounter strangers on a daily basis. For years, missing sex trade workers have later turned up dead, desecrated and forgotten in farmers’ fields outside the city. In British Columbia, the victims of Robert Pickton still remain on many people’s minds. It is a grim truth, what can happen to those people that have no one looking for them.

Changes need to be made to ensure that sex trade workers do not continue to go missing. A sex trade worker may only be a “hooker” to many people but to someone, she is family. She is a daughter, a mother, a sister, a friend. But the sad truth is it can be extremely difficult to keep track of someone who lives on the street. Women who work in the sex trade industry are often missing for a long time before anyone notices or thinks to report it to the police. Legalizing prostitution would allow sex trade workers to work in brothels without fear of police raids and jail time. By legalizing prostitution, the government could also regulate the sex trade, allowing for more protective measures to be taken to ensure the health, safety and well-being of all people involved in the sex trade. Legal brothels would give sex trade workers a place to check into every day, ensuring that someone would notice within a day or two if a sex trade worker went missing. Legalized prostitution would mean the government could implement a health check system that would send nurses to test sex trade workers in brothels for sexually transmitted infections and other health-related problems. This, in turn, would make working conditions not only safer for sex trade workers but also for their clientele. If prostitiution were legalized, sex trade workers would not have to hide from police. Instead, sex trade workers could feel more comfortable reporting any john who mistreated them or abused them.

Yes, legalizing prostitiution sounds crazy to some people. It’s a simple but extreme solution to a problem that is anything but simple. Sex trade workers often stay in the sex industry because they don’t know any other way of life. Last year I spent six weeks interviewing a sex trade worker in Halifax for a class project. I tried to learn every detail of her life; when I returned to my safe, warm home after every interview, I felt like crying. The women I interviewed dropped out of school in Grade 9 and had been arrested many times for solicitation. She had been beaten and broken and left for dead. She told me she could not leave the sex trade because she could not even get a job at Tim Hortons because of her criminal background. She had no options. The system had failed her, just like it has failed all women involved in the sex trade.

Relegating prostitution to a dirty, illegal realm has not made the sex trade disappear. Instead, it is the women who are involved in the sex trade that are disappearing. Sex trade workers are a marginalized group simply because society treats them as such. Sex trade workers are forced to remain separate from the very society that allows them to exist in the first place. The sex trade only remains alive because there are always customers willing to pay for sex. Ignoring the problem hasn’t made it go away. Ignoring the women in the sex trade has only made the problem worse. In order to keep sex trade workers safe, we must first begin to see them as people, not as outsiders. In order for that to happen, in order for sex trade workers to matter to society, the government needs to legalize prostitution. Too many women have gone missing; too little has been done to stop it. Legalize prostitution, regulate brothels and give sex trade workers a safe place to call home.

Should Convicted Rapists Face the Chopping Block?

2009-10-29T13:07:00.001-07:00

A man convicted of paedophilia multiple times is now once again on trial in France for a crime he cannot seem to stop committing. Francis Evard admitted his guilt during the first day of his trial but said he can’t explain why he continues to rape male minors, only that he has “impulses,” according to a recent article in the Edmonton Journal. Oh, but don’t worry about Evard; he has already come up with a plan to help him help himself. Evard has asked for his testicles to be surgically castrated, as in removed from his body. Evard wrote to Nicolas Sarkozy, the president of France, asking that he be allowed to break France’s law against surgical castration. Sarkozy has not replied to this request or commented on it publicly. If convicted, 63-year-old Evard will most likely spend most of his life in jail where he will not be able to harm any children. However, is it right that Evard remain a financial drain on the French penal system when he is wiling to undergo a procedure that would, in theory, allow him to stop committing the crime that resulted in his jail time?
If someone wants their testicles surgically removed or chemically castrated, that should be their own personal choice. However, the government does have some say in what happens to a man’s own personal pair. Every country seems to have a different opinion and law regarding surgical and chemical castration. Some are for it; some are horrified by it. In France, surgical castration is illegal, even when requested by the man attached to the testicles. In October 2009, Poland passed legislation that will allow for a judge to order chemical castration for sex offenders who have been convicted of raping children under the age of 15. In Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Switzerland and Sweden, convicted child molesters can choose to have chemical castration to reduce or eliminate their sexual urges. Surgical castration is legal in the Czech Republic; Zimbabwe is considering passing similar legislation that would allow for the castration of convicted male rapists. In Canada, several repeat child molesters have voluntarily submitted to castration in the past decade. In 2000, a convicted paedophile in Quebec voluntarily had himself castrated in order to reduce his sentence. If a man is willing to give up his cojones in order to curb his sexual impulses, why not? Rewarding any convicted rapist who is willing to surgically or chemically castrate themselves in exchange for a lesser sentence or a shorter stint in the slammer is a smart way of reducing overcrowding in jails.

However, surgical castration must remain an individual choice, not a lawful threat. Sure, it would be delightfully vengeful if a judge could punish every convicted sex offender by sending them to the chopping block but there are too many moral and ethical implications to consider. What if a man who involuntarily loses his testicles is later found to be wrongfully convicted? I don’t possess male anatomy but my understanding is that balls don’t grow back once they are gone. Also, many people consider castration mutilation, akin to Female Genital Mutilation, when a woman’s clitoris is partially or fully removed. If surgical castration became a lawful punishment for male rapists and paedophiles, would an equal law be passed for female rapists? Would the law only apply to those convicted of molesting children or would all rapists be at risk for losing part of their anatomy? Where would the line be drawn?

While surgical castration seems like a fitting punishment for rapists and paedophiles, chemical castration would be the more humane option. Chemical castration consists of injections that would reduce or even completely kill a man’s sex drive (and hopefully hurt. A lot). Chemical castration should, in theory, curb a man’s sexual desires enough that he would not feel the urge to misuse his junk for evil, but would still leave him physically intact. This would remove many doubts about whether surgical castration is too close to outright mutilation. If used properly, chemical castration could provide convicted rapists and paedophiles a chance to serve shorter sentences and rejoin society. Do they deserve a chance to leave jail early? Maybe not, but a solution must be found to repeat offenders and overcrowded jails. The government of Canada (along with the government of France) needs to examine the law and decide if it would be feasible to create a system that would reduce the amount of repeat offenders by chemically castrating convicted rapists and paedophiles.

Cutting Inmates’ Visitation Rights a Specious Way to Save Money

2009-10-25T16:56:00.001-07:00

Visiting your favourite mobster or godfather in the clink just got a whole lot easier, albeit, less personal. The new Edmonton Remand Centre, set to open in 2012, will not allow visitors to actually visit the centre, where the majority of inmates are only awaiting trial, not actual convicted criminals. Instead, visitors will trek to a yet-to-be-determined off-site location to video chat with prisoners. The reasoning behind the switch is simply to make the system more efficient, says the province. Every time a visitor arrives at the current centre to see an inmate, they must go through security screening, which is costly and time-consuming. Also, the current in-person visiting system only allows for 12 visitors at a time. The new system would most likely have 60 booths at both the Remand Centre and the off-site location, which would allow for about 1600 half-hour visits per day. Visitors would still have to make an appointment to speak to an inmate and would need to travel to the off-site location for the video conference.

While the reasoning behind the new visiting system may be purely financial from the province’s point of view (after all, times are tough and any changes that save the province money are seen by many as a good move, whether or not the changes are beneficial or harmful). However, many of the people who are favour the idea of video visits over face-to-face visits say that it is a good idea simply because the inmates at the Remand Centre don’t deserve in-person visitors. At best, this is specious logic; at worst, it’s vindictive. The Remand Centre is primarily a facility to hold people awaiting trial, meaning that inmates have not yet been found guilty of a crime. It is one thing to take away the visiting rights of convicted murderers; it is quite another thing to take away outside human contact from people who are supposedly presumed innocent until proven guilty. Many people will say the prisoners awaiting trial in the Remand Centre are criminals and don’t deserve visitation rights; I say, that’s for a judge and jury to decide.

The average prisoner is only in the Remand Centre for approximately 18 days; however, some prisoners are kept in the centre for years before their cases go to trial. Imagine having no direct human contact with your wife, your brother, your best friend or your kids for almost three weeks. Sure, people often go that long without seeing loved ones if they live far apart or are away at university or on a business trip. But imagine not having direct contact with your husband or grandchildren for two years not by choice but because you are incarcerated for a crime you did not commit and have not been convicted of. I don’t think any of us can pretend that it wouldn’t be hard not seeing the people we are used to seeing or living with every day. Removing a prisoner’s right to speak to their loved ones in person punishes not only the prisoner but also the wives, husbands, children, siblings and parents of prison inmates.

Not only will removing in-person visitation rights for prisoners be detrimental to the well-being of a prisoner’s family and friends, it may potentially cause a prisoner to have difficulty successfully rejoining society after their time in the Remand Centre. Having to tell friends and co-workers your two-week vacation was actually spend in doing time in the clink for a crime you didn’t commit is socially awkward enough as it is; imagine having to have that conversation if you had spent the entire two weeks you were away not talking to anybody face-to-face except prison guards and your fellow inmates. Humans are creatures of habits; social skills are learned and must be practiced, otherwise they will be lost. Isolated inmates run the risk of being unable to rejoin society as a functioning human being, making them kind of useless to the world at large. But 18 days is such a short time, you say. Well, why don’t you lock yourself in solitary confinement in your basement with no laptop, no TV, no people to talk to for the next three weeks and report back on how you feel after that experience, if you’re still able to communicate your feelings. Innocent people who have not been convicted of a crime by a court of law should not be cut off from their loved ones, with possibly long-lasting detrimental effects on one’s quality of life.

Harper Becomes Human, With a Little Help from His Friends

2009-10-15T06:00:00.000-07:00

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past week, you surely have heard that Prime Minister Stephen Harper put on a show-stopping musical performance at the National Arts Centre (NAC) in Ottawa, on Saturday, October 3. Harper’s performance came as a complete surprise to everyone who attended the black-tie gala, which was a fundraiser for the National Youth and Education Trust. Who knew that a conservative prime minister who invoked the wrath of the arts community by cutting funding for arts and culture not only actually likes music but is capable of performing? Harper pounded the ivories and belted out the Beatles classic “With a Little Help from My Friends,” accompanied by the famous cellist Yo Yo Ma.

Harper’s performance created an instantaneously positive reaction from almost everyone. Symphony members on stage couldn’t contain their smiles. The audience roared their approval not only when Harper walked onstage but again when the first strands of music floated in the air. Liberals stood bravely in their seats to join in the standing ovation. For a few minutes, it appears the entire theatre, regardless of political beliefs or personal opinions, was enthralled and united by Prime Minister Harper.

Although Harper insists he had no idea his performance would create such a reaction from media and people around the world (the video of his performance is now the fifth most popular video of all time on YouTube, less than a week after it was first posted), the performance was a genius move on Harper’s part. We all tend to view politicians as separate from us “regular” beings; we elevate politicians to a different level not only because we elected them but because we need to see them as separate from the common folk. We need to see every politician as a non-human so that it is easier for us to not only let them guide us but also so we can easily blame them when things go wrong. Many people openly voice their opinion that Harper is, in fact, some android from another planet, not flesh-and-blood like us. And this makes it a lot harder to like him, and all politicians. We don’t relate to Harper, so how could he possibly relate to us or understand what we need? By performing an iconic song popular with all generations, Harper showed everyone a side of him few people get to see. Harper humanized himself, in a way that seemed neither calculating nor manipulative, even if it was meant to be. As one of my friends said about Harper’s performance, “He looks amused by this thing us humans call music.”

Harper’s performance might have been a stunt to con us all into liking him and the Conservative party, in case of an election in the near future, or simply because he is expected to call four by-elections in November. After the Conservatives lost their seat in the Calgary-Glenmore by-election this past September, the Conservatives can’t be sure of easily winning any seats. Still, Harper’s motive for doing a musical number at a fancy event isn’t really what’s important. After all, it was Harper’s wife, who happens to be the honourary chairwoman of the National Youth and Education Trust fundraiser gala, who suggested he perform at the gala. Maybe Harper’s motive for singing was as simple as wanting to please his wife. Maybe it was an evil plan devised by a robot to convince us of his humanity. Or maybe Harper simply thought it would be a fun thing to do.

Other Conservative politicians, especially those whose leadership is being questioned (ahem, Premier Stelmach), should take a page from Harper’s handbook and try to find ways to show us their fun, human sides. Before, I could never picture what Harper was like when he wasn’t being a politician. Now, I can easily see him kicking back with a beer (okay, maybe a glass of wine) in front of the TV, watching a hockey game or a Beatle’s concert DVD. I can picture him taking piano lessons from some mean, old lady down the street at the age of six. I can believe that he feels bad about mistakes he has made while in power and that he wants to change things for the better. I can picture him winning a majority government. Whether he deserves it or not, I’m not sure. But anyone with the balls to pull off that performance after only a week of practice deserves our respect

What's Gender Got to Do With It?

2009-10-07T20:24:00.000-07:00

Jan Buterman isn’t a substitute teacher for the Greater St. Albert School district anymore. It’s not because Buterman is a bad teacher, or a pedophile or a Lutheran. Buterman is none of those things (except Lutheran, that is). Jan Buterman was removed from the substitute teacher list in 2008 because she decided that at the beginning of the new school year, she would no longer be Mrs. Buterman. Instead, she would be Mr. Buterman.

In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects Canadians from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This ruling set a legal precedent, meaning that people who are gay, bi-sexual, heterosexual, or metrosexual can’t be fired because of who they sleep with. Unfortunately, there are no laws about what to do in cases where gender identity comes into play. Transgender people are not protected by law, meaning that people like Jan Buterman can be fired because they have decided to make the transition from male to female, or female to male.

I understand parents might worry about the confusion their child might face if one of their teacher’s who was a “she” in June comes back as a “he” in September. However, having a transgender teacher makes no difference to the quality of a child’s education. There are good teachers and bad teachers, lazy teachers and earnest teachers. Gender isn’t a factor in any teacher’s ability to do their job correctly. Is your child’s teacher passionate about what helping people learn? Is your child’s teacher bright and engaged in their role in the classroom? Those are the things that matter when it comes to a child’s education. Most kids don’t care about their teacher’s gender. And if your child does have a problem with a teacher who has suddenly transitioned into a different gender? Than maybe it would be a good time to teach your kid about tolerance, acceptance and compassion. The transgender population in Canada doesn’t consist of three freaks sitting under a bridge somewhere. Although it’s impossible to track the amount of transgender people in Canada, there are plenty of active transgender communities in every province, which means eventually your kids will meet someone who is in the process of, or already has, changed from one gender to another. Would you want your child to act hostile or violently towards a transgender person? Or would you hope that you raised a child who is accepting of everyone, including people who might be different from them? What if it was your child who decided they were more comfortable as a boy even though they were raised as a girl? Would you want them to be shunned or fired from a job they loved?

Buterman’s transition from one gender to another shouldn’t be a topic of debate. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and feelings about that subject. However, a person’s job security should not rest on whether or not the general public approves of their personal life choices, as long as those choices are not illegal. Firing a teacher because they are transgender isn’t about what’s “best” for the kids and it’s not even about adhering to the Catholic church’s belief system. The Greater St. Alberta Catholic School district allowed Buterman to teach before, despite the fact that he is not Catholic. Did the school board not worry that Buterman would inflict his Lutheran beliefs on the poor, susceptible Catholic students? Firing Buterman is the school district’s way of saying they don’t accept Buterman’s life choices because they differ from their own. However, the Greater St. Alberta Catholic School district is not a privately-funded school district; it’s a public school district, which means the public has a say in the decisions made by the school board.

Buterman is clearly a person of character and integrity. He could have chosen to move to another town where no one had ever known him as a woman and started his life over again there. Buterman chose not to hide, not because he wanted to make life difficult for anyone or cause a scene but because he has a right to keep his job, whatever his gender may be. Why should Buterman hide? Buterman’s very public battle to fight for his rights sends a good message to the kids he used to be allowed to teach: stand up for yourself, no matter what others might think. By firing Buterman, the Greater St. Albert Catholic school district set a disturbing precedent for all school districts and the people who work in them.

Please note: The term “transgender” means different things to different people. Some people prefer the terms “transfolk,” “Gender Identity Disorder,” “Male-to-female” or “Female-to-Male.” In this column I use the term “transgender” as a blanket reference to all of those things not to be offensive, but for simplicity.

Emery Smoked by Extradition

2009-09-30T20:02:00.001-07:00

Mark Emery, leader of the British Columbia Marijuana Party, entered jail on Monday to ponder his fate before he is extradited to the United States to serve a five-year jail sentence for mailing marijuana to users ‘round North America. Although Emery is a Canadian and has never visited the land of the free and the home of the brave, he is to serve his sentence in the U.S. because he technically sold seeds in America, albeit via the postal system. Some people, mainly Emery’s wife, argue since Emery is a Canadian, he shouldn’t be “charged and imprisoned in a foreign country” or that Emery should at least be able to do his stint in jail in a Canadian prison. Oh look at that poor criminal, forced to go all the way across the border to the big, bad United States for a crime he admits he committed. Boo freaking’ hoo. People who commit crimes in other countries are generally extradited to that country. Canada generally co-operates, unless the country doing the extraditing is known to have a poor human rights record. Even then, government intervention isn’t guaranteed.

It’s kind of hilarious, in an ironic sort of way, that Emery is being extradited to the United States when he has never even stepped foot in the country. The U.S. might be foreign territory to Emery but it’s not like he’s being forced to leave the continent. Emery might be stuck doing jail time in a country that voted for George W. Bush twice and thinks Jessica Simpson is worthy of a Vanity Fair cover but at least Emery will be able to speak the language.

It would be easy to have an ounce of sympathy for Emery; that is, if he accepted some responsibility for his actions. But sadly, Emery makes it nearly impossible for many of us to like him. A loveable stoner in a Judd Apatow movie, he is not. Emery doesn’t seem to understand that he broke the law. He also doesn’t think his business bred consequences. Emery has been quoted as saying, “There isn't a single victim in my case, no one who can stand up and say, 'I was hurt by Marc Emery.' No one.” But many people are, directly or indirectly, victims of Emery and his business. The majority, if not all of the marijuana seeds Emery sold from 1994 to 2005 were, no doubt, grown into plants. These plants were smoked by teenagers, parents, lovers and hippies. People got high from these plants. Fine, whatever. Some people probably just bought the seeds to grow a plant or two in their dorm room closet. Maybe these people just liked to smoke up occasionally, at parties and with friends, and never sold pot. These occasional stoners probably had a grand old’ time, courtesy of Mark Emery and his magic little seeds. These people presumably weren’t hurt in any way and maybe they didn’t hurt anybody along the way. But some people undoubtedly did hurt themselves, or others. Some drove high, perhaps causing accidents. Some people who grew Emery’s marijuana seeds into marijuana plants sold them to other people. Some of these buyers and sellers were no doubt stuck in a downward spiral they couldn’t break and their lives crumbled, in large part due to drugs. Emery isn’t separate from this pain. The man who sold the seeds is no different from the people who sold the plants. For Emery to claim that “no one” was hurt by his seed-selling business is bullshit. Just ask Emery’s wife Jody who sobbed as she watched her husband being escorted to jail. Just ask Emery himself, who may spend the next five years in a U.S. jail, unless he issues and wins an appeal. Oh, if only there was some way to avoid this whole messy business. Oh wait, there is: don’t break the law in the first place; and, if you are going to break the law, don’t put it on your business cards.

The only person who wasn’t hurt by Emery’s seed-selling business is Emery’s public persona the “Prince of Pot.” Emery’s public image has actually been boosted in the eyes of many, thanks in part to the 30-city “farewell tour” he did before he was taken into custody. Now, instead of being seen as a slimy enabler with a lucrative business, Emery will be seen as a martyr for the marijuana cause. Pot smokers and anti-establishment types all across North America will be in awe of Emery because he is pro-pot, pro-legalization, pro-I-Can-Do-Whatever-I-Want-Even-If-It’s-Against-The-Law-And-I’m-Likely-To-Get-Caught.

Half of Readers Aren’t Really Reading This

2009-09-23T19:49:00.000-07:00

Today, I want to talk about something serious. Seriously. And I do not have it in me to be my usual snarky self so please bear with me. Illiteracy is just not something I can find it in my heart to be sarcastic and snooty about; it’s not a hilarious subject. Illiteracy is, in fact, a heart-wrenching subject, one that doesn’t get talked about very often. However, it is my firm belief that ignorance only leads to more ignorance; and so, we cannot bury our heads in the sand any longer. We can no longer ignore the fact that many Canadian adults do not possess the reading skills necessary for completing every-day tasks. Illiteracy isn’t a problem that will go away just because people don’t discuss it; in fact, it will only get worse. And the problem is more relevant in today’s society than most people could ever imagine.

A new interactive map created by the Canadian Council of Learning has revealed that almost half of Canadian adults have only a level two or lower literacy rate. Adult literacy is rated on a scale of one to five; a level three is seen as the bare minimum a person needs to comprehend global knowledge. The study showed that 48 per cent of Canadian adults do not meet these requirements. 48 per cent of Canadians can’t read or comprehend things that many of us take for granted, myself included, such as bus schedules or pill bottles. What the hell happened? What is going on in our school systems that 36 per cent of adult Edmontonians and 35 per cent of adults living in Calgary cannot read at the desired level to function in society?

But surely these numbers represent the uneducated, the homeless, the derelicts of our society, you say? Don’t kid yourself. These numbers represent people of all ethnic groups and income ranges. After all, in St. John, New Brunswick, 53 per cent of adults (defined as someone aged 16 or older) are reading at a level two or lower on the literacy scale. I highly doubt over half of St. John’s population are homeless or unmotivated to learn. These numbers represent people that, for various reasons, have slipped through the cracks of our education system. Over-crowded classrooms and cuts to education budgets over the past years have meant that teachers are over-extended and cannot always give kids the extra time and energy they need to learn new skills, such as reading. And now that many parents need to work more hours than ever in order to make ends meet, many kids may not be getting extra help with reading and writing exercises at home. It doesn’t matter how good a parent you are; reading the latest Disney book with a child isn’t exactly always someone’s top priority after a 12-hour work day. In primary and secondary school, reading is a cumulative learning process. Kids start to learn the alphabet in kindergarten, then work their way up the literacy ladder with pop-up books, work books, short stories, poems and novels. If a child has trouble with the initial steps, do they ever really have a chance to catch up? Kids who aren’t good at reading are often thought to be lazy; kids who don’t like reading usually aren’t given enough motivation to improve their skills.

Reading and writing is such an important part of my life that I can’t imagine not being able to do so. Not only can low literacy affect someone’s ability to move up the corporate ladder but it can also have a direct affect on their personal life. Can you imagine going on a date and not being able to read the menu? Or going to the theatre and not knowing what play you were about to see? Or how about seriously hurting yourself or even dying after accidently taking your roommate’s pills because you couldn’t read the bottle and thought the pills were yours? All of these are very distinct possibilities.

Something needs to change. Canadians cannot accept such wide-spread illiteracy. The Canadian government needs to ensure that more adult-learning programs are in place throughout the country, in order to reach as many adults with low literacy levels as possible. All public libraries should be required to hold regular adult learning sessions at no cost to the attendees. Finally, we must all let go of the stigma attached to illiteracy so that any adults who wish to improve their reading and comprehension skills are not mocked or ashamed of pursing higher learning.

An Open Letter to Junk Food Producers

2009-09-18T23:25:00.001-07:00

Dear Makers of all delicious, snack-like treats:

I hear that you, the producers of all that is chewy, gooey and sinfully delicious, had plans to “fortify” all of your tasty, hard-to-resist treats with vitamins and minerals. Do you, the producers, honestly believe that we, the consumers, need any more reasons to scarf down your delightful snacks and thirst-quenching beverages? Do you, the makers of salty chips and sweet chocolate bars, really believe we don’t like your products? Why, that is simply not the case. In fact, we must often talk ourselves out of consuming handfuls of your products every night as we sit bored, with glazed-over eyes in front of our televisions/books/partners.

As I am sure you (and your marketing team) realize, it can be quite difficult to restrain ourselves from eating a Reese Peanut Butter Cup or five after a long day of work. How are we, the hungry and desperate, supposed to stop ourselves from eating more than just one of your Lays chips when we find out that not only are your waist-expanding products scrumptious but also chock full of the vitamins and minerals we need to help prevent that second heart attack? Simply put, we cannot. It is more than we can take. It is one thing to resist chocolate-cover bacon (yes, this exists and is presumed delicious) when we know it is bad for our hearts and waistlines. But if we suddenly found out our favourite products actually had some nutritional value, resisting chocolate and bacon (together or separately) would become a feat too difficult to overcome. People would buy vitamin-enhanced Doritos by the truckload. Supermarkets would be over-run with shoppers demanding Mineral Coca Cola and Ben and Jerry’s Phish Food with extra Omega 3.

Do you think I am exaggerating, producers of consumer products designed to expand our bellies and overwhelm our taste buds? Believe me, sirs and madams of the snack food industry, when I say, I am not. You need only to look at any product labelled “fat-free” to know that I am correct in predicting an increase in obesity and mortality rates if the federal government continued with their plan to allow junk food producers to fortify their products with vitamins and false hope. Too many people treat the “fat-free” label on a box of cookies as a “Get out of Jail Free” card. I know there are people out there who would eagerly eat an entire box of double-stuffed Oreos in one sitting if they only had that forgiving “fat-free” label on the box. Many people also now choose to hydrate themselves with Vitamin Water instead of regular H20 because they believe it is part of a healthy lifestyle. Since Vitamin Water has about 100-120 calories per bottle, and regular tap water has approximately zero calories per serving, Vitamin Water (and all other vitamin-enhanced waters on the market) is not as healthy as we would all desperately like to believe. I should know; I am a recovered Aquafina Vitamin Water-aholic. Cherry Pomegranate was my poison and I was up to two bottles a day. Oh, initially it was a great match. I needed the vitamins and the Aquafina Vitamin Water makers needed suckers like me. Then one day, I looked at the cold, hard facts and admitted that my 200 calories-a-day habit was doing my body more harm than good and I quit my habit.

Vitamin-and-mineral-enhanced junk food products are like communism; they are good in theory but do not work out well in real life. Things like vitamin-enhanced pop and “fat-free, omega-enriched” cookies would be great if everyone who ate them didn’t decide to increase their intake because they thought the snacks in question were actually “good for them.” We, the hungry and gullible, will believe anything you tell us if it means we can have more of our favourite junk foods. Marketing executives would likely prey on a nation with a rapidly-increasing obesity rate and a weakness for chocolate-covered anything. We, as consumers, would be out-matched and we all know it. Luckily, the federal government has decided to kick their potentially dangerous plan to the curb, at least for now. However, I am sure that you, the makers of everything salty, sweet or carbonated, are already planning your next attempt at fattening us all up. But please stop trying to make your already-heavenly products more satisfying and marketable. “Healthy” junk food must remain an oxymoron if any of us are to live past middle age. Thank you and kind regards.

Hey, Rats: Go Away. Hey, Rats: You Can’t Stay

2009-09-10T06:56:00.000-07:00

I don’t like rats. I think they are disgusting and not in a frat-boy way. Not only are rats disease-ridden vermin who gnaw away at things that don’t belong to them, but they are literally not even cute. The only rodents who are cute exist solely in Disney movies. People who insist that rats are adorable creatures who deserve to be loved just as much as cuter animals such as panda bears or kittens mystify me. Rats are not meant to be cuddled and one does not need a zoology degree to figure that one out. What perplexes me the most is when people decide to keep rats as pets. Who does that? People whose parents never let them have real pets, that’s who. It is not only gross to have a pet rat but also illegal. Rats are not allowed in Alberta under the province’s Agricultural Pest Act. We literally have people who patrol the boarder not for illegal immigrants and drug smugglers but for rats. People who are found harbouring rats can be fined up to $5000 if they refuse to give up the rats. Anyone who refuses to pay the rat fine can spend up to sixty days in jail.

But, alas, our record of keeping Alberta “rat-free” for over 50 years is at an end now. Norwegian rats have been found in several places within Alberta and not just in towns bordering on Saskatchewan. Rats have been recently found in Taber, Newell County, Airdrie, Springbank and Fort Saskatchewan. No one knows quite how these little vermin slipped through our once-impenetrable guard against rats but the fact is they are here. While suspicions run high that the rats jumped across the border from our neighbouring province Saskatchewan, there has been no actual evidence of this, other than the fact that Swift Current, Saskatchewan is currently overrun with rats. And the fact that the two provinces do border on each other. But since we have no hard evidence other than geography that the rats originated from Saskatchewan, let us not blame our next-door neighbours.

Instead of placing blame, Alberta and Saskatchewan need to team up to conquer this rat invasion. If the rats are originating from Saskatchewan, and only Saskatchewan, then eliminating the rats in Saskatchewan should, in theory, help stop more rats from visiting Alberta. And the more rats both provinces get rid of, the better. You see, when two rats love each other very much (or even just happen to be in the same place at the same time) they will breed. And one Norwegian rat couple can produce 15, 000 rats in one year. ONE YEAR! And those 15, 000 rats could easily split into 7500 rat couples to produce their own harem of rat babies, since rats don’t really care too much about avoiding inbreeding. That means just one rat couple can equal enough rats to take over the world, or at least too many rats to mathematically calculate. And even if I could do that kind of math, I wouldn’t want to know the answer. I’m horrified enough without knowing how many rats could actually be produced in Alberta in my lifetime.

But what’s the big deal, you say? Are rats really as bad as you make them out to be, you wonder? In a word, yes. The rats that are currently invading Alberta are particularly bad. Norwegian rats are known for decimating crops, spreading diseases, contaminating food and chomping on buildings. Times are tough enough as is without a bunch of rats ruining what little crops Alberta’s farmers have left. Not to mention that Norwegian rats apparently like to bit people. Canada can’t even handle preparation for a supposed upcoming H1N1 pandemic; how will the country handle an increase in rat-related diseases in two provinces? Tourism in Alberta could also take a big hit if word gets out that a visit to Alberta could mean some face-to-face time with some rodents, and not the adorable Mickey Mouse variety. Simply put, rats equal chaos. The Alberta government, in conjunction with the Saskatchewan government, needs to put all of our other problems on the backburner for a few weeks and find a way to make this rat problem disappear for good. I don’t know which method is the best for seeking out and killing rats. But I do know Alberta cannot allow the rat invasion to go unnoticed or there will be serious consequences for Alberta farmers and the general population.

Conquering Back-to-School Fears

2009-09-03T04:35:00.000-07:00

It’s September, which means only one thing: it’s back-to-school time. We all know the stereotypical reactions that are expected of parents and kids when back-to-school season starts; parents are supposed to literally jump with joy and glide down the aisles of Staples Business Depot, flinging school supplies into a shopping cart with ill-concealed glee. Kids are supposed to sigh and look depressed, while passively accepting their fate. But is this really how it is for parents and students everywhere? Some psychologists say that children can actually fear going back to the classroom, instead of just feeling disdain for learning and regimented schedules. Young children entering elementary school (or any new school, really) are encouraged to prepare themselves for school before September in order to feel more confident about going back to school.

But what about new university students, or “grown-up children,” if you will? How shall the hoards of anxious teens heading to university or college for the first time settle anxiety about going to a new school? This often-overlooked group of school attendees might face fears ranging from mild (will I like my roommate?) to hysterical (where the hell is my room?!) about entering a school system that is completely different from what they are used to. They have no clue what they are in for. Poor bastards.

Here are some of my infinite pearls of wisdom for the university-bound.

The Pre-University lesson: Go to the doctor and get the flu vaccine. Then stock up on Cold FX, Nyquil, Dayquil or your preferred cold/flu drug of choice. University is a breeding ground for germs. Dorms are the hub of all this germy activity. Dorms are full of sleep-deprived, stressed-out students who drink, eat junk and are used to their mammas taking care of them. All of these things equal snot and sore throats if you’re lucky, meningitis if you’re not. So get lots of sleep, drink plenty of (non-alcoholic) fluids and don’t swap germs with random strangers unless you truly believe they are worth getting sick for.

The Once You Arrive Lesson: If you arrive at your dorm before your roommate, claim the bed by the window. If a psycho breaks into your room (through the door), they are more likely to kill the first person they see. Good luck to you if they break through the window. That brings me to another lesson: always lock your door(s) and window(s). It sounds like common sense but many people don’t lock their dorm doors even when they are sleeping.

The Don’t Get Kicked Out Lesson: Balancing partying with studying is a delicate line to toe but it is a balance that must be learned if you want to be social without flunking out of school. Get your school work out of the way and then party. Try not to do this in the reverse order too many times. The more you procrastinate, the less time you have for socializing. The better you are at time-management, the more fun you will have. Simple as that. If you suck at studying or time management, go see someone at the student services office for help. Most universities offer seminars on learning proper study skills, how to write a better paper and learning to deal with stress. These services are free and should be utilized by everyone, no matter how lame you might feel. You know what else is lame? Failing every university paper you hand in your first semester because you were too proud to go to student services for a free writing seminar.

The It Will Get Better Lesson: Unless you are some kind of genius (and probably even if you are) your grades during your first semester will not be as good as you are used to. University is harder than high school. It takes time to learn how to properly write papers, take good notes in class and study effectively. It might take a few semesters but if you put in consistent effort, your grades will go up. If they don’t, talk to some of your professors to figure out what you can improve on.

The Most Important Lesson: University is fun. Like, crazy amounts of fun. So enjoy the good times; they help carry you through the bad times when you just want to throw your laptop out the window. University will be hard and there will be times (maybe even many times) when you want to quit. But please don’t. The job market is congested enough as is.

A Lesson in Microdermabrasion

2009-08-28T11:10:00.001-07:00

I like to think I take care of my skin. I use moisturizer and sunscreen during the day and a rich face cream at night. I began using eye cream at the tender age of 18, hoping my early start would stave off under-eye wrinkles (it hasn’t). I always wash my make-up off at night, no matter how tired or intoxicated I may be. I exfoliate with a light exfoliator cream two to three times a week. I read fashion and beauty magazine religiously, desperately searching for tips on how my skin can be the best it can be. But I’ve never gone for a facial or any sort of fancy skin-saving procedure, due to a mild, slightly irrational fear of going into the spa with my normal peaches-and-cream skin and leaving with lobster-red burned skin. Okay, this fear actually stems from a botched eyebrow wax several years ago, one that left me missing about five layers of skin above my eyes. My brows haven’t looked the same since this unfortunate incident but I decided it was time to move on and conquer my minor fear of facial-related spa treatments. So naturally I jumped at the opportunity to try microdermabrasion when Donna Courage at Relax and Renew Spa in Calmar offered me a chance to try it. Conquering my fears for free? Sign me up!

Courage assured me that people with sensitive skin shouldn’t be scared of microdermabrasion. Courage performed face and neck microdermabrasion on me, free of charge, and it didn’t harm my fair skin. Courage used crystal microdermabrasion on me but she also offers diamond microdermabrasion. After carefully cleansing my face and slipping a pair of tiny goggles over my eyes, Courage rubbed the crystal microdermabrasion tool over my face and neck. The crystals polish your face while another tube sucks up the crystals- kind of like a dentist tool. I did end up with a few crystals in my ears but it’s not a messy procedure. The treatment doesn’t hurt; it feels like a cat is aggressively licking your face. If you happen to have a fear of cats, imagine a small dog licking your face instead.

Courage also does a mini-facial after each microdermabrasion treatment. Courage applied a Dermalogica moisturizer with sunscreen on my flushed face and assured me that the redness would go away in about 10 minutes. Microdermabrasion removes the top layer of dead skin on your face so wearing sunscreen afterwards is a must. Overall, the entire process took about twenty minutes. My face stayed red for about an hour afterwards; like waxing, definitely do not try microdermabrasion an hour before a hot date or any other important life moments. A difference in my skin tone wasn’t immediately obvious but my skin definitely did have an extra glow afterwards. The next morning, my skin felt slightly softer, plus I just felt so darn lady-like and grown-up after my afternoon at the spa. Fear of facials conquered, thank you very much.

For the best result, Courage recommends a series of six microdermabrasion treatments, spaced one week apart. At $120 per treatment, or $480 for a package of five treatments, it’s not exactly inexpensive but it is cheaper than a face-life, or Botox. Microdermabrasion helps reduce fine lines, wrinkles, acne scars, enlarged pores and age spots by taking away the dead skin on the surface of the face, which also allows products to penetrate the skin more effectively. Although Courage said that twenty-somethings such as myself can benefit from microdermabrasion, I think anyone who already has nice skin could probably hold off on treatments until their thirties, unless they are willing to spend the extra cash now. Microdermabrasion is something I will definitely do when I’m a little bit older and (even) more paranoid about wrinkles and fine lines encroaching on my face.

There are at-home microdermabrasion kits available but I can’t see how they would be very effective. Plus, what sane person does the equivalent of sand-blasting their own face in their very own bathroom, sans goggles (or sans sight, depending on your aim)? While many brave souls test-drive other routine aesthetic procedures such as waxing or hair- dyeing at home, I’ve always preferred the comfort of having an expert perform any procedure that could potentially mess up my appearance (plus it’s always nice to have someone else to blame if things go wrong). Microdermabrasion is a spa treatment best done in the spa, by a trained spa technician who comes complete with goggles and years of practice.

First Birds, Now Bears

2009-08-21T20:16:00.001-07:00

Lately there has been a lot of discussion regarding how to best deal with animals encroaching on human territory. In July, Edmonton Journal writer Cigdem Iltan wrote an article on a hired gun in St. Albert whose target was not humans but, in fact, magpies. The response to the article was overwhelming. Some residents applauded the city for getting rid of the annoying birds who serve no real purpose in life. Other people felt that the culling of magpies was not only unnecessary but cruel. I felt divided on the issue; after all, the birds might be annoying but were they dangerous?

Now wildlife officials have killed 12 bears at a northern Alberta landfill. Some Conklin residents were apparently feeding the bears. Bears, once feed by humans, become used to it, and like all hungry animals, want the free meal service to continue. These bears were apparently no longer afraid of humans and posed a threat to the small community. The 12 bears that were killed didn’t flee but actually kept eating even as their dining companions were shot and killed.

Since the bear cull, there has been considerable aftermath. And if you thought people were pissed off about the magpies of St. Albert, you should see how they are about the bears of Conklin. So far, the majority of people responding to the Journal’s initial article on the bear culling were disgusted at what transpired at the Conklin landfill. Many people question why the bears were shot and killed instead of relocated to another area. The problem is once bears become accustomed to being feed, their location ceases to matter. They will seek out food anywhere they can get it. Bears are not like our forgetful friends, the elephants; bears have memories and will not forget that where there are humans, there is food to be found. Bears that are used to being fed will associate humans with meal time. Do you really want to be the poor, unfortunate soul who goes for a walk by the town landfill, only to become the equivalent of a cartoon ham in a bear’s eye?

Yes, the bears needed to be shot. It was too late for them to change their ways and they posed a serious threat to the residents of Conklin. But it wasn’t the bears’ fault. The residents of Conklin, wildlife officials and the Alberta government should have taken steps to prevent this avoidable massacre. The dump should have been fenced long before the bears ever stepped foot on it. Currently, landfills are not required by law to be fenced. The Alberta government needs to introduce legislation that would require all landfills to be fenced. Yes, bears might eventually tear down the fence but a fence would make access to the dump more difficult and therefore, less desirable to the bears. People must learn that it is never okay to feed a bear. Not only does it teach the bears to associate humans with food, making it more likely that bears will seek out humans; it also makes bears less fearful of human contact and more likely to roam around populated areas. Alberta schools should teach students the proper way to deal with bears and what to do if one encounters a bear face-to-face. I would have no idea what to do if I saw a bear up-close. Luckily, I hate camping and have never been to Conklin, so my experience with bears is limited to the Bernstein variety found in children’s books.

The public needs to stop focusing on the death of the 12 bears and instead start demanding that steps are taken to ensure that a major bear cull never has to happen again. Alberta’s black bear population still stands strong at 40,000. We can protect those bears by not allowing them to become habituated. First of all: people, stop feeding the damn bears. They are not goats at a petting zoo and they are not starving. Next, ensure that you know what to do in case of a bear encounter, so that wildlife officials don’t have to shoot a bear to stop it while it is the middle of eating you. Third step: write your local and provincial governments asking for any landfills in your area to be fenced. The Conklin bears didn’t deserve to die but had to be killed to protect the residents of Conklin. Steps must be taken to avoid a reoccurrence of this sad waste in the future.

Exercise Annoying and Hard, but Still Essential to Life

2009-08-13T06:21:00.000-07:00

I have a confession: I don’t exercise enough. I do exercise in random, guilty spurts, meaning that one week I’ll be super-healthy active girl out-and-about town on my pink bicycle and the next week I’ll be perma-glued to my desk or couch with my laptop (hey, newspaper columns don’t write themselves, you know).

There are plenty of reasons not to exercise. It’s expensive (anyone who has ever bought so much as a headband at Lu Lu Lemon knows that workout clothes aren’t cheap), it’s time-consuming (how can one jog and follow Gossip Girl at the same time?) and it’s difficult (unless you are already in shape and in that case, why would you exercise?).

Still, despite all these compelling reasons, physical activity is an essential part of a healthy lifestyle. We all know that regular physical exertion plays a huge role in achieving or maintaining a healthy weight and reducing the risk of many diseases including heart disease and cancer. Unfortunately, exercise is something that many people still avoid. Some people may avoid exercise in a defiant attempt to buck the system. Others avoid exercise because they are shy about working out in front of others or simply don’t know how to use any of the equipment at the gym. But most people avoid exercise simply because they are too busy to fit it into their schedules (In the battle between early morning workouts and sleep, workouts rarely win).

Regular workouts are something we all need to start making time for, no matter how tired or busy we may be. According to Stats Canada, 23.1 per cent of adult Canadians were obese in 2004. That’s about 5.5 million people with a Body Mass Index over 30. In the same year, 36.1 per cent or 8.6 million Canadians were considered overweight.

Being overweight runs all sorts of risks including diabetes and sleep apnea. Not to mention that it’s harder to find clothes that fit. But if the thought of poor sleep and not being able to fit into next season’s skinny jeans aren’t enough to motivate you, here’s a statistic that might: more than two million Canadians now have Type Two diabetes. And the number of people being diagnosed with diabetes just keeps getting bigger, not unlike Canadian’s pant-sizes.

Adults need to increase the amount of physical activity they squeeze in each day, not only for themselves but also for the next generation. Children learn from example. We all need to ensure that we’re setting a good example for the little ones by exercising and eating properly. Parents can’t assume that their children are learning about nutrition in school because the majority of schools don’t cover proper eating besides a quick look at the Canada Food Guide and trust me, it doesn’t sink in at that age. It’s hard enough for adults to comprehend a proper serving size when it comes to food so how can we expect a five-year-old to do it? Parents need to be pro-active about teaching their kids proper eating and exercise habits a young age because child obesity rates are rising at a terrifying rate. Throughout the world there are more than 22 million children under the age of five who are overweight, according to the IFIC. And the amount of school-aged children who are overweight is more than seven times that amount.

In 2006, the Canadian government introduced the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit, aimed at making athletic programs more accessible for families who otherwise may not be able to afford them. The tax credit is a good step towards encouraging children to be more physically activity and all families should take advantage of it. Children in school don’t physically exert themselves enough in gym classes to hit the recommended 60-90 minutes of exercise a day. Parents need to ensure their children are getting enough exercise by enrolling their children in team sports or any physical activity such as swimming lessons or dance classes. Helping your child find a physical activity they love will help ensure they continue to make physical activity a part of their routine for the rest of their lives.

We can all stand to exercise more. Even walking 30 minutes a day can reduce the risk of obesity-related health problems. As for me, you’ll be seeing a lot more of my pink bike around town. With you, the reader, as my witness, I will make exercise a part of my regular routine instead of something I do sporadically out of guilt. Consider it a belated summer resolution.

Chequebooks bad; online banking good

2009-08-06T06:40:00.000-07:00

I don’t know how to balance my chequebook.

In fact, I don’t even have a chequebook.

Nor do I know anyone my age that does have a chequebook. And if they did have one, they wouldn’t know how to balance it either.

Is this lack of chequebooks a sign of my generation’s fiscal irresponsibility? Or is it merely a sign that technology has taken over the world of money? Like many people I know, I do the majority of my banking online. Every few weeks I look at both my bank accounts from the comfort of my own home and one of two things happen: A) I smile and let out a little sigh of relief when I realize I have enough money to cover my credit card bill or B) I freak out when I realize I don’t have as much moola as I previously thought.

Am I giving you the impression that I am irresponsible with money? Don’t worry; you are not alone if you believe Generation Y (anyone born from the mid 1980’s to the early 1990’s) is incapable of handling their own money responsibly. You may even be right. A study for St. George’s bank in Australia showed one in four Generation Y-ers do not budget or save their money, as noted recently in the Edmonton Journal. Maybe this study shows that my generation doesn’t bother to think about their long-term financial well-being.

However, it’s likely the study did not take into account that Generation Y-ers think about money in a different way than their parents and grandparents. We don’t need a balanced chequebook to tell us how much money we have in the bank. We are capable of being constantly aware of our financial situation because of a genius, environmentally-friendly invention called online banking. While older generations seem to fear any technological advancement in banking such as ATMs, debit cards and online bank statements, Generation Y has learned to embrace the idea of no longer being a slave to an ugly, cumbersome chequebook.

Online banking has made chequebooks unnecessary, if not completely obsolete. For one thing, I have enough crap to carry around in my purse; I don’t need anything else cluttering up my handbag. Online banking is also more convenient. As a writer, I spend approximately one-half of my time at my desk, starting at a computer. Other people in Gen Y do this too but most of them have no such excuse for spending half their time hunched over a laptop. Still, between laptops and Smartphones, most of my generation has easy access to the internet at all times, which makes online banking a breeze. And most banks have their websites set up to make customers jump through a series of online hoops to access their accounts.

Another reason Gen Y prefers online banking is that checking your account online is not only faster than going to the bank, it allows us to avoid all human contact while dealing with our money. It’s not that we don’t enjoy the company of the bank teller and every other person sneezing and coughing in the bank line-up, it’s just that we enjoy our own company more. We’re busy people. Besides, staying at home to bank online is much more pleasant than getting a H1N1 flu shot, I imagine.

But the best reason for using the online banking system that every major bank offers is that online banking is more environmentally-friendly. Anyone who sets up an online bank account can check their balance and do transactions online. This eliminates the millions (if not billions) of little paper receipts that are given out not only at the bank teller but also after every ATM transaction. Some banks also allow customers to sign up for e-statements, meaning that they won’t receive a huge, bulking paper statement in a thick envelope every month. Banking online is a small but easy step in reducing the amount of paper we waste every day.

Generation Y’s refusal to bend to old conventions, such as owning and balancing a chequebook, is not just another thing we do in an attempt not to grow up to be our parents; our lack of chequebook prowess is also a way for Gen Y to fight the continuation of Gen X’s horrific complacency with unnecessary paper waste. This does not mean we are burying our heads in the proverbial sand when it comes to our financial situation; it means we are taking small steps towards saving our planet. Join us, won’t you?

Harsher Punishments for Drunk Drivers Will Reduce the Number of Repeat Offenders

2009-07-30T06:19:00.000-07:00

People driving under the influence of alcohol have been a problem for as long as…well, since the car was invented, I’m guessing. But lately the problem seems to be out of control. Or maybe society is just becoming more aware of the problem and less intolerant of people’s excuses. But if society as a whole is against the idea of driving while intoxicated, why is it still happening?

Although it sounds ridiculous, some people don’t take drinking and driving seriously. Obviously, based on the amount of people getting arrested in 2009 for drinking and driving, there are still plenty of people in Leduc who believe they can adequately drive while intoxicated. Not only do people still think it’s not dangerous to drink and drive, the number of people who drink and drive actually appears to be growing. The Leduc RCMP has already laid 103 impaired driving charges in 2009. That’s the same amount of people the Leduc RCMP arrested in 2008 on impaired driving charges. Are more people making stupid decisions or are more people simply getting caught?

I’ve heard people say that they feel okay about driving after a few drinks because they’ve done it before without any problems. The only trouble with that logic is that luck isn’t infinite. People who drink and drive once are risking their lives and the lives of everyone on the road; people who drink and drive multiple times are playing Russian roulette- it’s only a matter of time before their luck changes. Yes, life is a game of chance and we all risk our lives every day simply by getting out of bed. That is something we have to accept about life if we want to enjoy it. However, people shouldn’t mess with the odds by doing something they know is deadly. People who drink and drive are basically suicidal- they are willing death upon themselves every time they rev up their engine after a night at the bar.

Everyone has the right to put themselves at risk if they so chose. After all, skydivers risk their lives every time they jump out of a plane. However, skydivers and other risk-taking thrill-seekers don’t jeopardize the lives of other people when they risk their own lives. Drunk drivers are not just putting their own lives in danger; they risk injuring or killing innocent people, whether it’s their own passengers or a family in another vehicle who has the misfortune of being on the same road as an idiot. Everyone who has ever thought that it’s not a big deal to drive after drinking should think about their own family. How would they feel if someone killed their mother, father, brothers, sisters, wife or kids in a completely avoidable accident?

Our justice system does not properly punish people who are convicted of driving under the influence, nor does the current punishment discourage drunk driving. Harsher punishments, such as mandatory jail time or a permanent loss of driving privileges for anyone convicted of drinking and driving should be in place. More severe consequences may not cut down on the on the number of first-time drunk driving offences but will certainly motivate people not to be repeat offenders.

The current consequences for driving while under the influence of alcohol aren’t enough to encourage people to make smarter decisions. The province of Alberta needs to crack down on drunk drivers by changing the law to reflect the seriousness of the crime. Right now, someone who gets caught driving drunk for the first time is likely to only lose their licence for one year and have to pay a small fine. It’s a punishment that sounds harsher than it really is. Yes, it would suck not being able to drive anywhere for a year and yes, it would be embarrassing to lose your licence. But not being able to hop in your car to go to the Dairy Queen is not on the same level as not being able to leave your jail cell for a year. Losing your licence is not the equivalent of dying in a car crash because of someone else’s stupid decision. If someone is arrested for drinking and driving at an early age they may go on to repeat their mistake later in life if they are not dealt a serious punishment the first time around. Some people will still drink and get behind the wheel of a car but the number of repeat offenders will be reduced if drivers face more serious consequences.

Internet is Powerful, Not Private

2009-07-23T06:04:00.000-07:00

Canada’s Privacy Commissioner has declared Facebook to be in violation of Canada’s privacy laws in a recent report. Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddar questions the site’s policy of only allowing users to deactivate, not delete, their accounts. The report also blasts Facebook for sharing users’ information with third-party advertisers. These are reasonable concerns. However, Facebook’s users don’t really care about their privacy; otherwise, they won’t be on the site in the first place.

Yes, Facebook violates Canada’s privacy laws in several ways but users cannot complain because they voluntarily sign up for the website. Also, users can choose how much of their personal information they include on their Facebook page. Some people engage the highest level of privacy settings and don’t let anyone see their information, except their name. Some users even have a giant question mark in place of where a photo would be. These people want to look at their friends’ pages without having anyone gain access to their own information. These are smart, cautious people who won’t have their identities stolen.

At the other end of the privacy spectrum are people who share too much information on their Facebook page. These users post their phone numbers, their address, their work information and the photos from their recent trip to a nudist colony. These users also leave their profile open to the public so anyone who clicks on their name can see their entire profile. These exhibitionists are just asking to be stalked by strangers.

Many Facebook users are smart enough to balance the cautious line between over-sharing information and not giving out any information at all. These users put up photos from last weekend’s birthday party but make sure to delete any incriminating photos. These users may put their birth date on their profile but would never give out their home address. These people want to stay in touch with friends and families but don’t feel the need to have their existence validated by a random friend-of-a-friend liking their latest status update.

Sadly, there are plenty of people on social networks like MySpace, Twitter and Facebook who use the Internet to get attention from friends and strangers by posting racy pictures of themselves or constantly updating their status every three minutes. However, savvy online social butterflies can now also use the Internet to their advantage. People advertise their job search on Facebook, hopeful that the kid they sat next to in Grade Two but haven’t seen in 20 years will know of a cool job. Guys message that cute girl they were in love with in junior school but never had the courage to talk to in hopes that they can reconnect as adults.

Baby boomers may not understand youths’ obsession with online blabbing but marketers and businesses are paying major attention to online social trends. Movie studios are starting to realize that people can easily ruin a movie by tweeting about how crappy a movie is before they have even left the theatre. A movie that opens solid on a Friday night can bomb on Saturday because Friday night’s viewers have alerted the entire online world that the movie isn’t worth seeing. Word of mouth can kill things and now online word of mouth kills things faster and more effectively.

Other companies are also learning to respect the awesome power of online forums. After baggage handlers for United Airlines damaged a Canadian musician’s guitar, his band wrote the song United Breaks Guitars, which features the snappy chorus: I should have flown with someone else/ Or gone by car/ Because United breaks guitars. The guitar’s owner Dave Carroll spent over a year trying to get compensation from United Airlines with no result. Only three days after posting the hilarious video for United Breaks Guitars on the popular video site youtube.com, the airline agreed to “make things right.” The airline was undoubtedly feeling the pressure from the number of YouTube users calling for a United Airlines boycott.

The Internet is a powerful tool which must be used carefully. While Facebook should strive to keep the strictest levels of privacy settings available for those users who wish to use them, the privacy commissioner’s report was an unnecessary waste of time and money. Users know what they are getting into when they sign up for social online sites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. No user can say they expect total privacy when they willingly invite people to be their friends on the Internet.

Could Drinking Save Health Care?

2009-07-16T18:33:00.000-07:00

Have you ever heard the phrase “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”? Premier Ed Stelmach should get it tattooed on his forehead because it’s so darn appropriate. Last April, Stelmach announced the government would raise taxes on liquor as part of the fiscal budget for 2009/2010. A day at the lake became a little less enjoyable with party-goers paying an extra $1.30 for a 12-pack of beer. Hard liquor became an expensive mistress at an extra $2.89 for a 750-millilitre bottle. Wine, with the lowest increase at only seventy-five cents extra per bottle, became the first choice for the lush on a budget. The new liquor prices were the highest in the country. And so people complained, as is their democratic right. And hey, it looks like the squeaky wheel really does get all the grease, or at least all the cheap drinks.

Last week Stelmach announced the government would be rolling back the tax hike on liquor. Drinkers around the province rejoiced. Naysayers and practical thinkers were not so thrilled. Why would the government renege on a tax hike when the extra money could go towards more important things, like health care? Yes, that would have been a smart solution to the health care funding crisis but it’s too late now. The decision to roll back the liquor tax hike has been cemented by Stelmach’s firm declaration last week that there would be no new tax increases on his watch.

Now Stelmach is in a catch-22 situation that basically leaves him screwed either way.
If Stelmach sticks with the status quo he will continue to be accused of choosing cheap liquor prices over health care. After all, the liquor tax hike would have brought in an estimated $180 million a year and Alberta needs every cent it can get right now. Health care will no longer cover chiropractic visits, which will save the province $53 million a year. Funding for sex change operations and gender reassignment surgeries has also been cut, which will only save the province a measly $700 000 a year. The projected revenue from the liquor tax hike would have allowed the government to keep chiropractic coverage and sex change operations coverage and left the government with over $100 million to play with in the budget. But if Stelmach changes his mind again and re-raises liquor taxes he will be reneging on his promise not to introduce new taxes and will face being kicked to the curb by his constituents.

Stelmach could have avoided this whole debacle by leaving the liquor tax hike in place. Normally I wouldn’t support the government interfering with anything liquor-related because I support separation of liquor stores and state. Private liquor stores are what makes Alberta so awesome, or, at the very least, it makes us unique. But eliminating chiropractic coverage is wrong. The province has a responsibility to ensure health care costs are kept at a minimum. It’s also the government’s job to reduce the deficit as much as possible. And the best way to reduce the deficit while ensuring health care isn’t compromised is to re-introduce the liquor tax hike. It won’t be a popular decision, and it will probably cost Stelmach his job, but the benefits outweigh the negatives.

It’s not like people will stop drinking because their favourite wine costs seventy-five cents more than it did last year. Liquor stores have said they didn’t experience a drop in business during the brief period when liquor taxes were higher. Drunks need booze to drink in order to remain drunks; without liquor drunks are just recovering alcoholics and that’s not nearly as much fun for them.

The biggest drawback to the tax hike is that some liquor stores did experience a higher rate of theft than usual. Perhaps some customers thought that by stealing liquor and avoiding the higher taxes they were sticking it to Stelmach in some sort of passive, Ghandi-like protest where no one got hurt. Except the sticky-fingered customers did hurt someone and it wasn’t the government- it was the store owners who had no say in the liquor tax hike.

Increasing liquor taxes is the equivalent of the government looking under the couch for spare change. Except this time the $180 million in spare change can make a real difference in our health care system. Albertans need to suck it up, drink up and allow Stelmach to re-implement the liquor tax hike. And hey, every time you have a drink you will be supporting better health care in Alberta. Cheers to that and bottoms up!

Ending Free Parking Won’t Solve Alberta’s Problems

2009-07-09T20:21:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of problems facing the world right now, such as famine, poverty, climate change and a global economic meltdown.

Canada itself is not immune for these aforementioned problems; our home and native land also has enough worries to cause some serious wrinkles on our leaders foreheads, including, but not limited to, politicians that don’t understand that EVERYONE can read your inane musings on the internet so maybe think before you type, a budget deficit bigger than I can count and a “sexy” lack of isotopes.

Okay, yes, our country’s problems are huge. But let’s focus for a moment on our beloved province Alberta. Alberta, too, has its share of woes lately. The serious lack of rain (most likely made worse by the aforementioned climate change) is destroying our farmers’ livelihood at an even more alarming rate than usual, many areas in the province have been declared disaster zones (which sounds impressive but really doesn’t get us any help from the government) and people can’t go anywhere these days without getting shot, stabbed or thrown under a bus, it seems.

But hey, forget all of that. Those problems are minor compared to what Albertans really should be worried about- that free parking is sucking up all of our money, ruining our property value and killing our planet. At least, that should be our biggest concern, according to a recent opinion piece in the Edmonton Journal. The opinion piece, titled “Ending ‘free’ parking should be our cities’ most urgent priority,” by Stuart Donavan and David Seymour claims that free parking really isn’t free because of the hidden costs to Canadians to build and maintain parking spaces. Yeah, so? Our “free” health care system isn’t actually free either. Thanks for the newsflash, geniuses.

It’s one thing to say that cities in Alberta should consider changing their parking system to a deregulated parking system but to say that “wiping parking regulations from municipal planning codes across Canada is arguably the most urgent policy reform Canada’s municipalities can make”? That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard since that rumour that Michael Jackson is secretly still alive and in hiding.

I agree that cutting down on the amount of free parking available in cities would slightly reduce the amount of people who drive, thereby reducing carbon emissions. The positive effect on the environment is the only decent reason Donavan and Seymour put forth as incentive for getting rid of free parking in cities. And that still isn’t enough of a reason to make it Alberta’s “most urgent priority” at this moment. Hello, have you not noticed all the other shit that is going on at the moment? Our lakes are drying up, crops aren’t growing, people are losing their jobs left and right and one in 10 kids in Alberta live in poverty. Maybe we should focus on solving some of those problems before we tackle the whole ‘free parking is the worst problem ever’ thing.

Normally, I would be in favour of anything that helps our planet and maybe even reduces some of the ridiculous amount of traffic in Edmonton that occurs every year during construction season. But I fail to see how a deregulated parking supply will ensure “that Canada’s urban areas are able to tackle current economic and environmental challenges,” like Donavan and Seymour think it will. Will charging people four dollars every time they drive to the grocery store really solve any of Alberta’s current problems?

Donavan and Seymour argue that when free parking is available, with the cost of the parking built into the cost of other goods, people don’t carpool or take public transit because they don’t have any incentive to do so. However, people still have plenty of incentives to carpool. People that carpool to work or elsewhere do it because it’s convenient, saves money on gas and is good for the planet. People who don’t carpool are not against driving to work with their buddies and co-workers because they are so damn eager to use free parking that they must drive their own car to work every single day.

Free parking is not our province’s biggest problem right now. Saying that ending ‘free’ parking should be our province’s number one concern right now is ludicrous when so much else is going on in our province and our country. Our government has more important and pressing issues to deal with at the moment.

Could Tim Hortons Be Any More Canadian, Eh?

2009-07-02T19:53:00.000-07:00

For years, everyone has declared a coffee from Tim Hortons the quintessential Canadian experience. Don’t enjoy a double double from your local Timmy’s? You’re not a real Canadian. Can’t understand why someone would want to eat something called a ‘hot breakfast sandwich’? Go check your birth certificate. And even if you are a Canadian citizen, if you don’t enjoy a hot, steaming cup of national pride from Tim Hortons, then we don’t need your kind here anyways. Move to Mexico.

That’s what we’ve all been told anyways. The Tim Hortons equals Canadian pride mantra has been drilled into us since 1964 when Tim Hortons was first founded. On your way to hockey practice? Grab a Timmy’s, eh? Need to cool down on one of the five hot summer days we see in Alberta? Don’t bother with a sprinkler; grab an ‘iced cap’ instead!

I’m going to let you in on a secret- despite popular belief, there are Tim Hortons outside of Canada. There is not one, not two but 527 Tim Hortons in the United States of America. In 1995, Tim Hortons joined forces with Wendy’s International, Inc, and expanded into the United States. Sad, I know. Just another thing Americans have copied from us, their friendly neighbours to the north. But we Canadians are far too polite to complain. At least former Canadians who now live in the United States can get their fill of ‘everything’ bagels and iced cappuccinos.

Who decided coffee had any sort of legal citizenship anywhere besides Brazil? What makes Tim Hortons coffee exclusively Canadian? Please don’t say Timmy’s is the ultimate Canadian treat because the chain started in Canada. Yes, the birth place of English Toffee coffee and timbits is Hamilton, Ontario, but that isn’t what really makes it so Canadian. Green plastic garbage bags were invented by a Canadian and I don’t hear anyone claiming taking out the trash is a unique Canadian experience.

Marketing is what makes drinking a Tim Hortons’ coffee a Canadian thing. Commercials featuring Canadian teenagers away from their homeland receiving care packages filled with Tim Hortons coffee have convinced us that if we too wish to be as Canadian as possible, we must hold on to a love of Tim Hortons coffee until our death beds. Clearly, if your child is travelling abroad they still require some French Vanilla from their beloved Timmy’s to remember their Canadian roots. If you don’t send your kids Tim Hortons' coffeemakers when they go to university in the United States, not only are you a bad parent, but your kid is more likely to defect and never come home again ever. Only you have the power to stop them. So send coffee.

My cousin went to the United States for university and really did never come home. She found a man and a job she loved in America and decided to stay. Apparently her parents didn’t send her enough Tim Hortons coffee while she was away to lure her back to Canada. But whenever she does visit her parents in Saskatchewan, she fills up on Tim Hortons as much as humanly possible and takes some coffee back with her. She talks about how much she misses it but really, is coffee the only thing she misses about Canada? I doubt it. This country has far too many other things to offer, like curling and publicly-funded health care. Luckily for my cousin and other ex-patriots, the Tim Hortons website will soon be offering U.S. and international shipping! Soon, not only will they be branching out of Canada and the United States but they will also let people outside of North America order their products. Blasphemy, you say! Business, I say. Why should Tim Hortons limit itself to the Canadian market? It is a business, after all.

Tim Hortons has announced that in order to take advantage of decreasing Canadian corporate tax rates, the company’s Canadian and U.S. business units will combine into a single business entity, as long as its investors approve. The company actually found a way to make itself appear even more Canadian by recognizing itself as a “Canadian public company”. Impressive, but it’s not because Tim Hortons doesn’t want to continue expanding into the United States. The company is reorganizing to save money. Federal corporate income tax rates in Canada will go down from 22.12 per cent in 2007 to 15 per cent in 2012. Why not take advantage of that opportunity to save on taxes? Tim Hortons still plans on opening more stores in the United States. They would be idiots not to. Right now Americans love Starbucks coffee and other brands but could be easily persuaded to switch to Tim Hortons coffee during the economic recession because Tim Hortons’ coffee is cheaper and still deliciously caffeinated.

Tim Hortons will still be seen as a Canadian company and a Canadian experience because Tim Hortons is currently 95 per cent Canadian owned. Also Canadian Tim Hortons’ stores still massively outnumber American Tim Hortons’ stores, with 2930 Tim Hortons locations in Canada and only 527 locations in the United States.

I’m not saying Tim Hortons isn’t still a Canadian company, which it obviously is. But Tim Hortons shouldn’t market itself as a purely Canadian experience when the Timmy’s experience is also currently available in Michigan, Maine, Connecticut, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York. Or at least people shouldn’t keep rolling up their rims because it’s just so gosh darn unique to Canada. Drinking a double double doesn’t make you Canadian; having Canadian citizenship makes you Canadian. Please don’t confuse the two, eh?

Does Crime Really Not Pay?

2009-06-25T16:30:00.001-07:00

What amounts to a fair punishment for being found guilty of committing a crime these days?

A young man from Leduc was recently found guilty of drug possession for the purpose of trafficking. Although the press has already printed his name, as they are legally allowed to do in this case, I don’t feel it’s necessary to name him here.

The provincial court judge who heard the young man’s case told the offender drug dealers are “bloodsuckers,” and she needed to make an example of him to send a warning to other potential drug traffickers. Judge Marilyn White then sentenced the 19-year-old man to pay a four-thousand dollar fine. She also banned him from owning weapons for the next 10 years.

I cannot see how emptying this guy’s piggy bank and telling him not to play with guns until he’s 29 serves as a scary warning to others who are thinking about or currently selling drugs. Sure, four thousand dollars is a lot of money. But if this man starts selling drugs again, he will easily make that money back in no time. I also fail to see how not allowing this man to own a gun or any other firearms helps him stay away from drugs, unless he used to steal drugs from his suppliers while threatening them with a shotgun.

During his trial the 19-year-old man said he had stopped using drugs and was trying to find a legit way to make money. Good for him; hopefully he meant it. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he did start using and/or selling drugs again. And I wouldn’t even blame him, really. I would blame the judge who promised to make an example of this young drug dealer and then failed to do so.

I’m not saying Judge White should have sent this young man to jail. I don’t think that would have solved many of his problems, although a few nights spent snuggled between a murder or two in a cold, cramped jail cell might have provided this young man some much-needed motivation to stay out of trouble.

Our legal system has failed to make an example of this man. Yes, he was dealing marijuana, a drug many people feel is relatively harmless, out of his car. He wasn’t selling crack cocaine in an alley somewhere. There are much worse crimes he could have committed. But at the age of 19 this young man has already pled guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking. He could obviously use a little extra help staying out of trouble.

Our system has failed this teenager because although we (barely) punished him for the crime he committed, we have not taken any steps to ensure he won’t commit the same crime again. If Judge White had put this young man on probation and ordered him to undergo random drug testing for the next year, the chances of him doing drugs or selling them to others would be significantly reduced. Judge White also could have punished the young man while simultaneously helping the community by sentencing him to community service or to giving talks at junior high and high schools about the dangers of getting into a lifestyle that involves using and/or selling drugs. This would have allowed the young man to reflect on his poor choices while helping other kids avoid his own mistakes.

The young drug dealer is an adult. He’s not some 10-year-old that broke the law without fully understanding it. He is old enough to deal with the consequences of his actions. Except in this case, the consequences are so minor the young man is not likely to learn that whole “you reap what you sow” philosophy of life.

Judges should not promise to send a message to others when deciding the fate of one law-breaker, unless they mean to follow through with that promise. Judge White’s decision sets a pathetic precedent that will help influence how other judges decide to sentence future teenage drug dealers. What’s the point of holding expensive trials if judges don’t punish criminals properly?

Teenage drug pedlars in the County of Leduc beware- if you get caught selling weed you’ll just have to give up some of the money you have made selling pot and the right to play with your very own shiny little gun for the next decade.

An Upside to the Recession?

2009-06-18T16:14:00.000-07:00

This week I read the first truly positive column I’ve ever seen about the current recession. And I don’t mean positive in a cautiously-optimistic ‘this might end soon if we’re really, really lucky” way; I mean, it was actually freakin’ positive in a “this is great!” sort of way. Weirdly enough, the column was by a deputy editor at Forbes. And here I was, thinking that anyone who worked at Forbes was too busy crying in their coffee that business people could no longer splurge on their over-priced financial magazine to find an upside to the recession.

The columnist in question, Elisabeth Eaves, actually managed to put a silver lining on the worst economic crisis since the 1930’s by describing it as an opportunity to buy things for cheaper, from salespeople who are nicer. Eaves writes about the “flip side” of a bad market, such as cheaper rent, better rates from banks and being able to get out of expensive personal obligations that you never wanted to fulfill, such as going to a friend’s destination wedding. Eaves herself managed to refinance her mortgage at a much better rate. Eaves writes, “There’s a global sale on, so if your own income hasn't plummeted, the getting is good”. She’s right; practically every store at West Edmonton Mall is advertising major sales in an attempt to move merchandise and retain customers. Now is the time to shop, assuming you still have a job.

The majority of people don’t agree there is a silver lining to the recession. Other financial writers are now sinking their sharpened claws into Eaves for being out of touch with what’s really happening to “real” people during the recession. On MSN’s money blog, Kim Peterson writes in response to Eaves’ column, “The only explanation I can think of here is that Eaves is in a different recession, where it rains cupcakes and kittens and where champagne glasses are never half-empty. I'd be celebrating as well in that case.” Side note: raining kittens? Ouch. Raining cupcakes? Delicious. And Peterson is being easy on Eaves compared to many of the reader’s comments on Forbes. Very few people seem to appreciate Eaves’ sunny disposition when it comes to money, or lack thereof.

Eaves does acknowledge that many people are suffering from the recession, particularly those who have lost their jobs. Admitting that people are suffering from the harsh consequences of the recession saves Eaves from entering into totally obnoxious territory. She tries to paint a rosy picture by telling readers that being laid off is an opportunity to ask yourself if you really liked your job that much in the first place or to discover what you really want to be “when you grow up.” Sure, people who have recently been laid off because of the global financial meltdown are probably burning effigies of Eaves right now and I really can’t blame them. It’s hard to say that everything will one day be fine and it’s even harder to believe it sometimes. Tell that to the family who just lost their home or the recent university graduate who can’t get a job at Wal-Mart, you say. And I understand. Usually, when someone tells me the sun will come out tomorrow, I tell them where they can shove that sun. But does cursing a bad economy help you find a new job? Does complaining fill your life with joy? Or does being a downer simply bring you down? Being negative never got anyone anywhere and I say it’s time we all stopped, including me.

Eaves might come off as a blonde twit on uppers for saying there is an upside to the recession but at least she is being positive. Yes, it is easier for her to be more upbeat than someone who has lost their job or house since she still has both of those. But Eaves has a point: finding the bright side of a bad situation sure doesn’t hurt you; in fact, it can only help. Sometimes, when you lose everything, you realize how much you still have left.

After months of hearing about the doom and gloom of the global economy, it was nice to hear from someone who was trying to see the positives of a recession. Maybe we should all slip on some rose-coloured glasses for now, if only to give ourselves a break from all the doom and gloom.

Oh Fudge!

2009-06-11T14:40:00.000-07:00

Edmonton Police Chief Mike Boyd has banned his officers from using foul language in an attempt to improve the image of the Edmonton Police Force. Although profanity has always been frowned upon, police officers are now officially no longer allowed to swear while on duty.

The no-cussing decree is just the latest publicity move from the Edmonton Police chief in an attempt to create more warm and fuzzy feelings between the police force and the public by making police officers seem more gentlemanly. Boyd also implemented a new dress code about a year ago, one that limited plainclothes officers to wearing dress shirts, ties and jackets. Boyd also enforced a policy that requires officers to wear their hats while walking the city’s streets. This move was supposed to not only make police more popular with the public but also boost the police squad’s morale. Oddly, it doesn’t seem to have worked. I can’t imagine why; isn’t everyone crazy about a sharp dressed man?

Normally, I would fully support anyone group’s decision to dress nicer but in this case, I’m sure the only people who got any sort of boost from the police force wearing ties are the salespeople at Moore’s. If I were to be held at gunpoint by some dastardly criminal, would I care if the plainclothes officer who came to my aid was stylish and well-mannered or if the on-duty police officer coming to my rescue was wearing a chapeau? No, I care if they can do their job properly and save my ass. If the police officer who rescued me from my hypothetical dilemma wore jeans and cussed like a sailor, I doubt I would really notice. Unless, of course, their shoes were, like, so last season.

Of course, most workplaces do require employees to adhere to a dress code. Dress codes can range from pyjamas (freelance journalist) to a coat and tails, with a top hat (carriage driver). But it’s one thing for Edmonton police officers to adhere to a reasonable dress code, it’s another thing to say that the dress code is in place to boost morale and enhance the public’s view of police officers. And I’ve never heard of a workplace that actually managed to enforce a no swearing policy, except, presumably daycares and elementary schools.

Obviously, the police force is feeling a little unloved lately. How else can you explain the 46 per cent of officers who are either dissatisfied or extremely dissatisfied with workplace morale, as shown by an internal survey this past January? The same survey showed that 51 per cent of respondents have seriously considered quitting the police department in the past year, according to a recent article in the Edmonton Journal. But hey, who cares if police officers are unhappy at work, as long as they look good doing their jobs?

Boyd does need to find a way to make these unhappy officers want to stay. And it’s nice that he’s trying, what with his attempts to tell his officers how to dress and talk, but his efforts so far seem to have missed the mark. Perhaps Boyd should make all his officers take a ball-room dancing class; that always cheers me up, plus what could be more gentlemanly than an officer who can waltz?

I personally don’t care if police officers swear or not, as long as they exercise some common sense about when and where to swear. There are certain situations were police officers definitely should not swear, such as when they are dealing with children, but to expect police officers to never, ever swear while serving and protecting the public is ridiculous. Have you ever been shot
at? I haven’t (yet), but if I was, I am quite certan I would instinctively let a few profanity-laced expletives loose. Really, really creative expletives that adequately expressed my feelings of terror.

Police officers often work in high-stress environments that can turn deadly in an instant. They probably don’t have time to stop in the middle of a hostage negotiation to do some calming yoga poses. Police officers need a more efficient way to blow off steam. I mean, isn’t that what wearing was invented for?

Most police officers have enough common sense to know when swearing is appropriate and when it is best just to bite one’s tongue. And if an officer drops a few F-bombs at the wrong moment, the police chief could always just wash their mouths out with soap instead of bringing them up on disciplinary charges.

Forcing new rules, like the new no-swearing policy, will only serve to lower the Edmonton Police officers’ morale. Treating police officers like children by telling them what they can and cannot say is not a long-term solution to the problems the Edmonton Police Force is facing.

Recycling Improvements

2009-06-04T16:17:00.000-07:00

There’s no use crying over slightly more expensive milk.

As of June 1st, Albertans started paying a little more for their moo juice. A four-litre jug of milk now costs an extra 27 cents at the store. Milk buyers will regain 25 of those 27 cents if they bring their clean, empty jugs to a bottle depot.

The initiative is part of Environment Alberta’s efforts to reduce the amount of waste going in landfills. According to a recent article in the Edmonton Journal by Hanneke Brooymans, “Alberta is the first province to include milk containers in the deposit-refund system.”

For once, the government of Alberta is actually working to show the world this province isn’t as backwards as most people believe it is. Unless, of course, to go along with this program the government plans on giving parents the right to pull their kids out of the classroom whenever teachers bring up a cow’s religion or sexuality.

But I digress.

I am proud Alberta is finally starting to make more positive changes to help reduce our impact on the environment. I confess, as someone who is allergic to milk, I never buy the stuff. So the price hike really doesn’t affect me, or at least it doesn’t affect my wallet. But it does affect the planet I live on. I hope not too many milk lovers out there will bitch about the small hike to milk prices. 27 cents is a small price to pay to help out our planet.

Hopefully the prospect of gaining ten cents for every milk container one litre and under and 25 cents for every milk jug over one litre will motivate more people to recycle. We all know recycling is a smart idea: it helps reduce waste and fill piggy banks. So why do so many people throw out their recyclables?

It’s hard to motivate people to take the time and energy to recycle because it doesn’t have an immediate, tangible impact on our lives. If I recycle a juice box, will I become a millionaire? Not likely. If I throw out the juice box instead of recycling it, will a tree fall in the forest? Probably not.

Recycling is important because of its long-term impact. It is an easy but effective step towards a less junked-up earth. Simply put, a monkey could recycle a milk jug. So can you.

Allowing milk jugs to be recycled is a positive step in the fight to minimize harm to the earth but it is only one step. Albertans need to take bigger leaps towards a cleaner environment.

There are many more things Albertans can do to lessen their impact on the environment. One of the simplest ways to help the planet is to stop using plastic bags in stores. Plastic bags are basically the devil. And there are a lot of them floating around. According to CTV Toronto, Canadians are guilty of taking home 55 million plastic bags from stores each week. That’s 2.86 billion plastic bags a year. How many of those bags get recycled? Check under your kitchen sink and report back.

Some cities in Canada have already taken steps to reduce the amount of plastic bags used. As of June 1st, 2009, the City of Toronto requires stores to charge five cents per single use bag.

In Halifax, Nova Scotia, many stores charge anywhere from five to 10 cents a bag. Halifax is also home to the first Atlantic Superstore in Nova Scotia to go completely bag-free; they literally only offer reusable cloth bags.

Environment Alberta must push for legislation requiring store owners to charge for plastic bags and to eventually go bag-free in order to give Albertans the encouragement they need to stop needlessly wasting billions of plastic bags a year.

Store owners may worry their business will drop if they demand customers pay for or bring their own bags. It won’t. People will be upset at first, but they will adjust their routine. Try it yourself; eventually it will be second nature to bring a reusable bag along with you whenever you leave the house. The bag-less Atlantic Superstore in Halifax is always packed, partially because it’s in a great location but partially because the people who shop there are proud of their decision to shun plastic.

Sure, customers will complain about having to buy the bags but reusable bags hold three to four times the amount that plastic bags do. Buy three or four bags at one to two dollars apiece and you’re set for life. Yes, you will forget your reusable bags at home sometimes and yes, it will be annoying. Keep a stash of bags in your car so you’re ready anytime the urge to shop strikes you. It’s simple, it’s effective and hey, it’s eco-chic. In a few years, you won’t even notice the minor inconvenience of carrying reusable bags.

It all comes down to the habits we form. We all often need a push to start respectable habits, like recycling, carrying reusable bags and flossing regularly. It is time for the Alberta government to give consumers that push. Normally, I wouldn’t be in favour of the government telling us little folk what to do in our daily lives but for this, I will make an exception. The Alberta government needs to make plastic bags a thing of the past.

Albertans, do your part by showing the government and store owners everywhere you are ready to eliminate plastic bags. Tell stores you’re anti-plastic by buying reusable bags and bringing them with you to all stores, not just grocery stores.

And while you’re at it, go buy some milk.

Youth Curfew Considered

2009-05-28T16:15:00.000-07:00

The Village of Thorsby is considering imposing a curfew on the town youth in an attempt to curb vandalism. Several weeks ago council decided more information would be needed before introducing a nightly curfew. Although I am not a parent, please allow me to give the parental units some well-intentioned advice: if your kid is already a hellion, a curfew won’t help. Try military school instead (kidding!)

If I truly believed that a curfew would solve the vandalism problem in Thorsby, I could probably get behind it. But I don’t believe it will help. A mandatory nightly curfew will only serve to make Thorsby feel more like a Nazi concentration camp than the charming little village it actually is.

I\m sure there are many people (some of them parents even) that truly believe enforcing a curfew on the teenagers of an entire town is a sensible idea. Maybe some folks even believe it is a great idea. After all, in theory, a teenager who is stuck at home between midnight and six a.m. cannot get into much, if any trouble because they will either be (presumably) supervised or asleep. But hey, you know what else works in theory? Communism. Think on that for a minute, if you will.

While imposing a mandatory curfew may make a slight difference in the amount of vandalism occurring in Thorsby it will not stop the problem. A lot of havoc can be wreaked in the early evening. For a youth curfew to actually hinder any youthful shenanigans it would have to start at six p.m. and run to six a.m., not that I’m suggesting we try that.

Oh, but a curfew will deter under-age teens from drinking, you say. A curfew will not stop the teenagers who want to drink alcohol from drinking it, although it may cause them to drink more, faster, during the hours they are allowed to be outside, in order to have a good time before they have to stumble home to make curfew.

A town curfew will solve few, if any problems for several reasons, particularly the inability to enforce it. I have to believe police have more urgent things to do with their time then chase a bunch of 15-year-old wannabe hoodlums around the mean streets of Thorsby. The local group Citizens on Patrol doesn’t have enough volunteers to fully monitor the village every night. Most towns simply don’t have the time or resources to patrol for under-age curfew breakers from dusk until dawn. And why should they have to? Last time I checked Canada wasn’t a dictatorship.

If parents want to enforce a curfew on their own kids, they are well within their rights to do so. It isn’t up to city councils to raise or discipline their town’s youths. It isn’t up the provincial government either, in case Ed Stelmach gets any bright ideas.

Rodney MacDonald, the premier of Nova Scotia, promises to impose a mandatory curfew on children under the age of 16 between the hours of one a.m. and six a.m. if re-elected in June. Talk about an abuse of power! MacDonald apparently fancies himself a somewhat stern father-figure to all the children of Nova Scotia. MacDonald is trying to confuse voters into believing that family values and unnecessary rules are the same thing.

They aren’t.

If teenagers want to act out, they will find a way to get around a mandatory curfew. They will crawl out windows and hide in shadows to avoid being caught by their parents or the police. They will meet up on the outskirts of town, where they will be less visible to police, to party or just hang out. They will be further away from help when they need it. They will be afraid to go to the police for assistance if there is an accident or someone gets hurt if they are afraid of getting in trouble for breaking mandatory curfew. They will actively rebel against authority because forbidden fruit tastes sweeter and breaking curfew seems cool.

If you want to scare kids off the streets after dark there are easier ways. Show them pictures of grotesquely wrinkled people while telling them horror stories about what happens when one does not get enough “beauty sleep”. Put them in hockey as soon as they turn four years old to train them into waking up at five a.m. so they will learn to go to bed early, even when they grow older. Mash up a sleeping pill into their evening meal and enjoy a quiet night at home. Okay, maybe save that one for extreme cases.

I don’t know the best way to keep teenagers from running amok in the streets. But I do know it is up to families, not the government, to decide if their kids need a curfew.