Ranting and Raving

Metro grocery store guilty of deceptive packaging practices

2009-07-25T22:13:00.002-04:00

The Metro grocery store (formerly LOEB) on March Road in Kanata is guilty of deceptive marketing & packaging practices, resulting in people believing they are receiving more product for their money than they might otherwise think they should be getting.

Here is what happened to me on July 22, 2009. I had breakfast at home that morning, but I was still hungry by the time I got close to where I work, so I detoured to the local Metro grocery store to grab a little something to nibble on, as I need to get a few other things there as well eventually, so I figured that I could do both things at the same place. Consequently, I found myself at the deli counter, looking at the sandwiches and the like. I came across a container with two seafood wraps in it, and that looked like it would be a nice snack to hold me over until lunch. I cheerfully grabbed it and the rest of my items, and cheerfully paid for them and continued to the office to eat this tasty-looking new snack. Here is a picture of what I purchased.

This looked pretty tasty to me! I was really looking forward to sinking my teeth into these two wraps. However, when I opened them up, I was greeted with a little surprise of the immorally deceptive kind. Here is what I discovered upon removing the paper surrounding the wraps:

As you can see, the scum-suckers at Metro’s deli counter, likely under the direction of management, took a single wrap, cut it in half, and then wrapped each half in such a way as to make it appear as though I was going to be able to purchase two separate wraps. Needless to say, I was most unimpressed. It should also go without saying that I will never purchase another wrap from Metro ever again.

It is bad enough that they feel the need to charge me $0.05 for a frakkin’ plastic bag, but they now feel the need to rip off the customers with the quantity of food they deliver too? I would have had no problem with a single wrap packaged in a single piece of paper, showing me exactly what I was getting. Then, I would have known that there was just one wrap, and I could have made the decision on whether or not I wanted to get one or two of them, based on my appetite at the time. Those scum-sucking frakkers took that choice away from me, and for that, and their disgusting lying ways, I will not easily forgive them. I know times are tough all over, but there is really no excuse for this level of customer abuse!

Maximum age to be a student?

2009-07-14T21:56:00.002-04:00

It seems that in the city of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, there is a new rule for student bus passes. Apparently, OC Transpo, Ottawa’s public transportation agency, only considers a person under the age of 28 to be a “real” student, so any full time student over the age of 27 will be required to buy a pass at full price, regardless of income or scholastic status. This reeks of ageism against mature students and students going for Masters and Doctoral degrees. After all, being a full time student over the age of 27 is deemed to be a different class of full time student as one who is 27 years of age or less.

OC Transpo representatives claim that other transit systems around the country have a student cut-off age of 25, so they are being magnanimous by setting their cut-off age to 27. Isn’t that like saying that other places in Canada discriminate against many races, but here we only discriminate against a few? Being less wrong is not the same as being right, or even better. If we as a country want to have a more educated society, we need to stop placing artificial barriers in the path of those who want to expand their knowledge, and start to tear down as many of these artificial barriers as we possibly can.

For screwing over mature students, and for thinking less bad is the same as good, I have to rate OC Transpo’s student pass policy an EPIC FAIL!!

I’m back!

2009-06-25T23:37:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the long absence. For the last year or so, things have been, shall we say, challenging, for lack of a better word. But there have been some positive changes in my life too. However, this is really difficult to write. I have been out of practice due to a living environment that is not conducive to writing, and very few other options. However, as of a few weekends ago, I am much more mobile in my computing, so if my home working environment is not helping, I now have options for relocation.

For this exciting privilege, I owe a great debt of gratitude to my parents, my sister, and my best friend for all chipping in and getting me this wonderful laptop for my birthday. I was so surprised by this great act of generosity that I was speechless and almost in a state of shock for several minutes. Now that I finally have Lappy (the name I have given to my laptop) set up and have software installed, I can now get back to something I have really missed - writing.

On that note, the world is saddened by the death this week of three icons of the 1970’s and 1980’s. First was the famous sidekick of Johnny Carson, Ed McMahon. He died on June 23, 2009. Then, on June 25th, 2009, Farrah Fawcett finally succumbed to the cancer she had been fighting against for several years. Then, as bad timing would have it, Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, collapsed in his Los Angeles home with what seems to be a cardiac arrest or some other possible cardiac problem. The world will know more after the autopsy is performed and the results are made public. It should not be forgotten that we also lost another icon of the 1970’s, David Carradine, of “Kung Fu” and “Kill Bill” fame, on June 3, 2009. For those of my generation, and my parents generation, it has been a very sad month indeed.

Consequently, with all this happening, and everything else that is happening in the world, I could remain silent no longer. It is time once again to rant and rave against the evils and injustices in the world, both real and imagined. Stay tuned. Things are about to get interesting.

New look

2008-08-28T12:57:00.003-04:00

As some will notice, I have changed the look and layout of the old blog. I was getting bored with the old look, and decided the old place needed some sprucing up. Let me know what you think of the new look. Both positive and negative feedback is welcome.

Protecting Our Kids?

2008-08-26T11:22:00.003-04:00

By keeping our kids safe, are we really protecting them? When I was a kid, I used to travel, alone, about a half a kilometre or so to the local playground, which was right at the end of the Halifax Harbour, in what is known as the Bedford Basin. It was no problem to throw a rock from the play structures to the water, it was that close. In fact, at the time, way back in the day, we used to go swimming in the Basin, when the pollution levels were low enough, which actually happened from time to time back then.

Today, kids of the same age almost never get the chance to go to the playground by themselves, or anywhere else, for that matter. I would even occasionally take off into the forested areas around my home, which covered a fair bit of area back then, just to see where it went. I would even go explore the subdivisions and pathways around the neighbourhood, to learn the lay of the land. I would even get lost from time to time, and have to find my way home again, learning lots of new stuff about my surroundings in the process.

To quote Billy Joel, in the song "Second Wind", "You'll learned more from your accidents than anything that you could ever learn in school." By keeping our kids safe and secure, and not letting them get lost or make any number of mistakes on their own, are we doing them a huge disservice? Is it a child's right to learn from their own mistakes? Is it a child's right to make a wrong turn, and get lost in the process, and perhaps learn more about the world around them in the process? Should we be sucking it up, and letting our kids do things more independently, despite the risks, in order to better prepare them for a time when they will need to be on their own, which will occur sooner rather than later?

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but that doesn't stop me from asking the tough questions.

See this Dallas Morning News Story for more perspective on this issue.

Why The Political Party System Needs To Die

2007-10-19T21:09:00.000-04:00

I have been closely following Canadian politics over the last few years, and things are getting much worse in the House of Commons and in provincial legislatures. For this article, I will be focusing on the Federal political scene. We have a few major political parties, and a few fringe parties. We have the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party, the Green Party, some fringe parties, and those elected members who sit as independents. The current Conservative Party of Canada is made up of what was formerly the Progressive Conservative Party, the Reform Party, and the Canadian Alliance Party. Or, as I call them, the Conservative Reform Alliance Party, abbreviated as CRAP. Gee, with all these parties, it is no wonder most of them spend much of their time acting like drunken teenagers at a fraternity party on a Saturday night.

These days, the CPC is running the show in the Canadian Parliament. They have a minority government, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper is itching for a majority like a crack junkie itches for a fix. His reign as PM is noted by his leadership style, which is that of the schoolyard bully who forgot to take his daily dose of Prozac. He forbids his MPs from speaking to the press, they must toe the Party Line or get kicked out of the party, as was the case with Garth Turner and Bill Casey who stood up for their constituents against the wishes of the Prime Ministers Office, and must always remember that the party comes first and foremost, and the people come last. To me, this has gone on for far too long, and I don't see any way that the problem can be fixed under the current party system.

On the other hand, I do see a possible solution. This is likely not a new idea, but it is worth mentioning in case someone else hasn't heard of it or thought of it themselves. I would suggest that we should completely kill the current party system and start from scratch with a completely new system. I would propose that each voting district would have several people run to be the local representative, in an independent manner. Whomever gets the most votes goes to the House of Commons to represent the voters of that district. Once everyone who was elected arrives at the House of Commons, and Parliament is in session, the first order of business would be to have the MPs elect a Prime Minister from among their ranks, using a nomination and voting process to elect the Member with the most votes. If no Member has a clear majority, then those who got the lowest number of votes would be removed from consideration, and the process would continue until a majority is reached by a Member. Then, the newly elected PM would then start the process of deciding who would make up the Cabinet, with the assistance of the other MPs. As an elected PM, he could be removed from the role by a majority vote in the House of Commons if he or she became too controlling or was otherwise deemed to be incompetent in the role.

In this way, there really are no parties. Just people elected to represent the people, hopefully working together for the common good. No party allegiances, no Prime Ministerial browbeatings, etc. There are probably a hundred details, big and small, that need to be addressed, but we need to at least get the national conversations started, and the sooner, the better. The current system is devolving into a chaotic mess, with nothing being accomplished, and every move being aimed at improving the conditions and position of each Party, by the members of that Party, with little regard to doing what is best for Canada as a whole. The more people we have talking about the issues, and thinking about solutions, the sooner we'll be able to kill this wasteful system, and create a shiny new system that will actually make Parliament work once again. Call me a dreamer if you like, but I dream of a system that is better than the one we have now. A guy can dream, can't he?

My Ten Favourite Sexy Women on Canadian Television

2007-06-25T15:27:00.001-04:00

For years, I have been reading Top Ten lists listing the most beautiful women in Hollywood, the USA, etc. But I have never seen a list of the most sexy women in Canadian television. So I decided to create one myself. To make the list, they have to be beautiful, Canadian, and have appeared on at least one Canadian television produced show, within the last year or two.

There are probably many others that should be on this list, but I limited myself to those I have actually watched, so your list may not be the same as mine. If I missed anyone that warrants mention, I invite further suggestions in the comments section. I in no way consider this list to be a complete and all encompassing list of all that is beautiful, intelligent, and charming in the Canadian television market. These are just a few of my own personal favourites, in no particular order.

Kim Porier

Kim Porier currently stars as the host of "HypaSpace", on Space, The Imagination Station, as well as co-starring in several movies, including "Decoys" and "Decoys II".

Cheryl Hickey

Cheryl Hickey is curently a co-host of "Entertainment Tonight Canada", Cheryl Hickey has been around the Canadian entertainment industry for many years.

Thea Andrews

Thea Andrews was a former co-host on the show "eTalk Daily" on CTV, and is now a correspondent on the show "Entertainment Tonight".

Victoria Pratt
Victoria Pratt co-starred on the show "Mutant X" until it came to an end after five seasons.

Dagmar Midcap

Dagmar Midcap is a former co-host of "Driving Television". She is now pursuing opportunities in L.A.

Lexa Doig

Lexa Doig was a co-star of the series "Andromeda", as well as the final 2 seasons of "Stargate: SG-1".

Laura Bertram

Laura Bertram co-starred in the series Andromeda, as well as a former co-star of the series "Ready or Not"

Su-Ling Goh

Su-Ling Goh is a former host of Inside Entertainment on Global TV. She is now the Health Matters segment reporter for Global TV Edmonton.

Lauren Lee Smith

Lauren Lee Smith co-starred in the first four seasons of the show "Mutant X".

Karen Cliche

Karen Cliche co-starred in the shows "Adventure, Inc.", "Mutant X", and "Young Blades".

Congratulations to the Anaheim Ducks!

2007-06-08T19:26:00.001-04:00

As everyone knows by now, the Anaheim Ducks beat the Ottawa Senators for the Stanley Cup in 5 games. The Ducks played well, and earned their place in Stanley Cup history. Congratulations, guys! Well played!

But let's not forget the other team that was there. The Ottawa Senators played well too, and worked hard to get to the finals. This team is the first Ottawa Senators team to make it to the playoffs in 80 years. That is nothing to sneeze at. They played well, and showed a lot of the character and gamesmanship that has caused them to have so many fans here in the National Capital Region and elsewhere in all the places where hockey is played.

I will always have fond memories of the 2007 playoffs, as it marks the first time that my son and I shared an interest in the game, and could discuss it together at the breakfast table the next morning. Even my wife got caught up in the excitement when they made it to the final round. It became a common topic we could all talk about together. It was a special time, and I will remember it fondly forever.

To everyone with the Ottawa Senators Hockey Club, enjoy your summer, and keep your heads up. You played with honour and skill, and you have nothing to be ashamed of. We are proud of you for making it that far, and we know you will do better in future years, and your time will come. Your performance in the playoffs this year proves that. You brought excitement to the region, and for that, we thank you most graciously.

Until next season, when we will once again yell out as loudly as we can, Go Sens Go!!

Go Sens Go!

2007-05-06T15:07:00.001-04:00

I have been following the NHL Stanley Cup playoffs this year, cheering for my local team, the Ottawa Senators. They eliminated Sidney "The Kid" Crosby and the Pittsburgh Penguins in 5 games. Then, they went on to beat Martin Brodeur and the New Jersey Devils in 5 games. The Sens are now in the Eastern Conference Finals for the first time since 1927. This team has gone through a lot of growing pains over the last decade. This year, they finally seem to be a mature team that has a real chance at lifting Lord Stanley's Cup over their heads in the end.

Last year, Ray Emery was the back up goalie to Domick Hasek. Hasek got injured late into the regular season, and no one was sure of how this rookie backup goalie was going to do. Everyone had hung their hopes of winning the cup on Hasek. I was personally impressed with how well Emery did, given how few games he played in during the regular season.

When the playoffs ended last year, and Hasek was given his walking papers due to his string of injuries and questionable recovery, I was telling friends that Emery should be made the #1 goalie for the Senators. When they signed Martin Gerber for something like $4 million per year to be the new #1 goalie, I felt that they should have made Emery the new #1, and give him a raise, and hire a new #2 goalie. Somewhere during the regular season, Gerber was replaced by Emery as the #1 goalie, and things improved dramatically.

Now, in the playoffs, with 2 playoff shutouts under his belt, I feel vindicated in my faith in "Sugar" Ray Emery. He is as good as I felt in my gut that he could be. And for the record, I don't feel he has reached his maximum potential yet. The best is yet to come from the young goaltender from Cayuga, Ontario. This is a goalie to keep your eye on in the years to come. He will doubtlessly be the next Hasek or Brodeur. And given some of the fantastic saves he has made so far in this playoff season against such good shooters as Sidney Crosby and Scott Gomez, I think that is a safe bet.

All I have to say now is:

Go Sens Go!!

Fox Broadcasting

2007-04-29T00:11:00.001-04:00

I am starting to think that Fox Broadcasting hates viewers like me who like intelligent, well written and acted dramatic television shows. Every time Fox airs a new show, and it doesn't get ratings numbers in the same range as "24" or "American Idol", they cancel it before they even finish the first season. Whatever happened to the days where a series was allowed to develop an audience over time, and not expect it to be there right from the beginning?

This week, it was announced by Fox that it was canceling the new series, "Drive", after only 4 episodes were aired. It was critically acclaimed by both critics and viewers, but it apparently didn't have enough viewers for Fox to keep showing it.

I have now vowed to never again watch a new series broadcast by Fox Broadcasting until after it is at least a year old, because I am getting tired of getting involved in a well written and acted show, just to have Fox pull the plug again and again. I loved the show "Firefly", which Fox canceled after 12 episodes. I was really getting into the show "Justice", until Fox canceled that after only 12 episodes. And now, "Drive" has been canceled too. They also canceled the show "Wonderfalls" as well, which I didn't see, but I heard good things about it. That show lasted a whole 4 episodes.

The message that Fox is sending to viewers is that it is not worth watching new shows, because unless it is a "reality" based show, it will be canceled in short order, if it is any good. So, from now on, I will watch shows on Fox that I am currently involved in that are longer running shows, like "24", "House", "Bones", Prison Break", etc., but I refuse to watch anything new they may show.

After all, if it is complete crap, it will stick around, but if it is of good quality, it will be canceled by the suits at Fox. And I have better things to do with my time than watch shows that won't last a season. And since I don't watch "reality" based shows, I soon won't be watching anything on Fox once the current shows I watch on that network get canceled.

My advice to production companies that are capable of creating quality programming: Don't go anywhere near Fox Broadcasting. It is not worth the headaches and heartaches.

A Joy to Behold

2006-12-14T22:21:00.000-05:00

I was at a Christmas party held by a local community centre. A significant percentage of the children there, and their parents, are of the Muslim faith, as is the lady who runs the community centre. For contrast, my family is decidedly not Mulsim. In fact, my little family have a number of religious views / faiths.

The party was too big to hold at the community centre itself, so it was held at a local French Catholic Church. There were children of other faiths there, also. It was a true pleasure to see all the kids playing together and having fun. No politics, no issues caused by different faiths and religions. Just a bunch of kids having fun together and learning from each other.

After a while, it was announced that Santa Clause was about to appear. All the kids joined together to sing a song. "Jingle Bells", I think it was. When Santa appeared, all the kids were excited, even the Muslim ones. And the parents were happy to see the smiles on their kids faces. It really was something special to see. Not a sign of anyone indicating that this was wrong because their faith doesn't believe in Christmas, Santa Clause, etc. Just a bunch of families from the local community, all together, celebrating the occasion, the season, whatever. And I was glad I was able to be a part of it.

What I saw tonight, which I already knew anyway, is that the world would be a whole lot better of a place to live if we could all get along, and see each other, as our children do. They don't see each other as Muslim vs. Christians vs. Hindu vs. whatever. They don't see skin colour. All they see is friends and playmates. We could learn a lot from our children.

When I see how my son interacts with other children in our neighbourhood from different ethnic backgrounds, I know that the future is full of hope and promise, and a great deal of potential for peace on Earth.

Modern Slang

2006-11-04T17:02:00.000-05:00

In modern parlance, saying something "sucks" means that it is bad or defective. For example, "That new song by so and so really sucks!".

However, if you have a vacuum cleaner that is defective, what can you say? "This vacuum cleaner really sucks!" is not actually a bad thing. You want your vacuum cleaner to suck.

Sometimes, a word is not usable in every context.

I just had to get that off my chest. Does anyone else have these weird thoughts?

The Harpy's Latest Mistake

2006-10-18T22:56:00.000-04:00

Today, "The Harpy" made a big mistake. He booted former Conservative MP Garth Turner out of caucus. The Honourable Member from Halton will now be sitting as an Independent MP. Here was a guy who was not afraid to speak his mind, even when it was against his own party. Of course, The Harpy couldn't have that. Mustn't have any MPs violating the "Cone of Silence" surrounding this Conservative Government. Everyone is supposed to keep their mouths shut, and tow the party line, only saying and doing as The Harpy commands. So much for that whole "open and transparent" government that The Harpy wanted us to think he would give us.

In my opinion, The Honourable Garth Turner is the only MP in the current government who actually deserves the "Honourable" title. He is the most progressive MP in Ottawa today, and the Reform, I mean Conservative, Party doesn't deserve to have him as part of their ranks.

Mr. Turner, I salute you. Keep up the good work of representing your constituents. And keep up the great job of being a thorn in The Harpy's side.

I should mention that he is neither my MP, nor am I a supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada.

I only hope that The Harpy won't kick me out of Canada for speaking my thoughts and opinions. If my next posting is from some tropical locale, then you'll know what happened.

Media Censorship

2006-08-20T16:43:00.000-04:00

As an adult, censorship in the media offends me greatly. As an adult I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I do or do not find offensive, and I am perfectly capable of changing the channel if I see or hear something on the television that I find to be offensive to me. I do not need any corporate overlords deciding for me what they think I will be offended by.

As a parent, I am perfectly capable of deciding what my child should or should not watch, based on his age. Yes, I know this is a form of censorship, but I only do it to keep him from being exposed to things he shouldn't be exposed to when an adult is not there to explain things to him in a way he'll understand. I believe in restricting him from things that are not age appropriate, such as shows with violent content, abusive language, etc. This is only because he is not old enough to fully understand what he is seeing. Even though he knows it is not real, I wonder if he really gets it sometimes. I'm sure he does, but I choose to err on the side of caution.

All that having been said, though, I do not plan to censor his viewing options forever. At some point in the not too distant future, I expect that the multitude of information and entertainment available on the television will be completely available to him. And I hope that by that time, he will understand the difference between reality and entertainment, and not think what he is seeing on most television shows is not real, including what is often portrayed by the news broadcasts.

Censorship in society is harmful to the citizenry of the world. We learn and grow as a society by being exposed to many different ideas, even those that are offensive. If we are prevented from being exposed to those ideas, usually by a small minority of narrow-minded people, then we as a society suffer.

Online Censorship

2006-08-20T13:35:00.001-04:00

Recently, on a blogging site, a friend's account was configured in such a way such that any comment I made to postings on her blog, or comments to other comments, were automatically screened. Screening is when a comment is not visible to the general public until the owner of the blog gives the comment his or her blessing, and only then can the comment be seen by those viewing the blog.

I guess she didn't like the comments I left as a reply to the blog entry.

I have a problem with censorship, be it online chat rooms, blogs, television shows, books, magazines, or whatever form of media I am currently engaged with. As an adult, I feel that I have the right to be able to say whatever I am feeling, without being censored by anyone. In fact, a lot of people have died in more than one war, to guarantee me that freedom. When I get censored, I feel like my rights are being suppressed, and that those brave men and women fought in vain.

If I say something that is factually wrong, or emotionally inconsiderate, or I am merely being an ass, then others also have the right to tell me I am wrong, preferably with some proof, or to tell me I'm being an inconsiderate ass, or whatever the other readers think of what I am saying. And I am fine with that. That is what living in a free and democratic country is all about.

What does offend me is when my comments are censored, and no one is given the chance to publicly tell me I'm being an ass, or I'm wrong because I didn't know about some piece of information that proves me wrong. Or even more offensive, having my comments simply deleted, because the owner of the blog, or the moderator of the chat room, or whomever is in control of the site I am posting to, decides arbitrarily that my comment offends them in some way.

Freedom of speech means freedom to be offensive. It also mean the freedom to be wrong. In either case, censorship takes away my rights, and the rights of others, and I will always be strongly against adults of any society being censored.

Update:

It seems that there was a problem with my friend's blog, and somehow those who were supposed to have unfettered access didn't, and those who were supposed to be blocked / censored weren't. The problem got corrected and everything is well again. The sentiments above are still valid, even though this particular incident was accidental and not actually a case of censorship.

Stephen Harper and the AIDS Conference

2006-08-18T18:24:00.000-04:00

I am going to jump on the bandwagon also, and condemn Mr. Harper for not attending the AIDS conference recently held in Toronto. Yes, I know that Tony Clament, the Minister of Health was there, as he should have been. However, this is not just some discussion group we are talking about. This is a major, internationally attended, event. Bill Clinton could find time to attend. Bill Gates could find time to attend. But Mr. Harper couldn't find a single day to make an appearance. He didn't even have to attend the entire event. That is what Mr. Clament should be doing. But why couldn't he make an appearance, shake hands with Bill and Bill, make a speech, and then head back to Ottawa and the business of running the country.

This will rank up there, in my mind at least, as being only slightly less dumb of a PR blunder as when Former PM Jean Cretien decided not to attend the funeral of Jordan's former king, King Hussein.

Stephen Harper and the GST reduction

2006-07-04T10:20:00.000-04:00

I would like to personally and publicly thank Mr. Harper for the 1% reduction in the GST. I have given him a hard time here in this blog, but I will give credit where credit is due. He said he would reduce the GST, and he has done it. 1% doesn't amount to a whole lot of extra money in a person's pocket, but every penny counts. For example, my morning coffee is now 1 cent cheaper. You may be thinking, "Wow. You can take that early retirement now" in a sarcastic manner. However, in the course of a year, given that I drink a coffee pretty much every day, and occasionally, twice a day, then that works out to 2 or 3 free coffees per year.

It may not be a lot, but I'll gladly take it, with a warm "Thank you!" to our Prime Minister.

McCain Fruit Smooth-eez

2006-05-27T21:31:00.000-04:00

I have recently seen the commercial for the McCain Fruit Smooth-eez product. This may be a good product (I haven't tried it yet) , but I have to say that the commercial itself is quite offensive.

The commercials are usually divided into 2 segments, where one person does something upsetting to the other. For example, a man stepping on a model airplane being built by a young boy, presumably his son. The father is shown rushing to the kitchen, plopping the ingredients for a Fruit Smooth-eez into a blender, mixing it up, pouring it into a glass, and giving it to his son, before he had a time to react negatively. This is apparently done to appease the child, to keep him from getting upset.

Way to go, McCain. You've set back the fight against childhood obesity by 20 years. In case you haven't noticed, the idea is not to perpetuate the myth that giving treats everytime someone is upset is a good thing. This is how obese kids are created. Nothing like encouraging people to shove your products into their kids mouths whenever they are upset.

This is what they are referring to when they talk about a corporation acting irresponsibly. As a Canadian, I am ashamed of what this Canadian company is implying in their ad campaign.

Added on June 13th:

I had an idea last night, on how to show the McCain's marketing people who came up with this ad campaign why it is stupid. I could beat the crap out of them with a baseball bat, and then afterwards, give them a Fruit Smooth-eez drink and let them decide for themselves if it makes them feel better or not.

First Anniversary

2006-05-22T14:40:00.000-04:00

Today marks the first anniversary of this blog. It was 1 year ago today, on my 40th birthday, that I started this. The entries haven't always been frequent, but I hope that what entries I have made have been worth reading to all 2 or 3 of you who actually read these.

Flags at half-staff on the Peace Tower

2006-04-29T08:15:00.000-04:00

There is a lot of discussion lately on when the government should lower the flag to half-staff on the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill. Here is the official description of the times it is appropriate, from the Government of Canada web site:

Flags on federal government buildings, airports, military bases and other establishments are flown at half-mast when directed by the Department of Canadian Heritage. The following are examples of the practice:

across Canada and abroad, on the death of the Sovereign or a member of the Royal Family related in the first degree to the Sovereign (spouse, son or daughter, father, mother, brother or sister), the Governor General, the Prime Minister, a former governor general, a former prime minister, or a federal cabinet minister;
within a province, on the death of the Lieutenant Governor, the Premier or another person similarly honoured by that province;
within his/her own riding, on the death of the Member of the House of Commons, or the Member of the Provincial/Territorial Legislature;
at his/her place of residence, on the death of a Senator, a Canadian Privy Councillor, or a Mayor.

Apart from occasions when flags on all government buildings and establishments across Canada are flown at half-mast, the flag on the Peace Tower of the Parliament Building at Ottawa is flown at half-mast:

on the death of a Lieutenant Governor;
on the death of a Canadian Privy Councillor, a Senator, or a Member of the House of Commons;
on the death of a person whom it is desired to honour.

In effect, the Government of Canada can lower the flag on the Peace Tower to half-staff for anyone it chooses to honour.

It should also be noted that the description talks about lowering the flag to half-mast. This is technically incorrect, since half-mast is a naval term, where the tradition started. At sea, on naval vessels, flags are indeed lowered to half-mast. However, on a land-based flag pole, the proper term is half-staff.

Subway Guilty of False Advertising

2006-04-09T19:38:00.000-04:00

I was in a Subway Restaurant recently, and they had a sign on the glass where they show the different bread choices, advertising a NEW garlic bread. I thought this sounded tasty, so I asked if I could have my sandwich on garlic bread. I was then told that there was no garlic bread, only a garlic spread they can put on whatever bread you want. The sign clearly said "Garlic Bread", not "Garlic Spread". To me, this is false advertising.

Just a few minutes ago, I was watching a comercial for Subway, and interestingly enough, it was advertising several new sadwiches, and they mentioned the garlic bread. The very same garlic bread that does not actually exist. Do they think we are stupid, and won't figure out they are lying to us when we ask for a sandwich on garlic bread, and then get told that there is just a spread, not an actual garlic bread?

This is just another example of corporations treating their customers like complete morons, and showing a complete disregard for their loyal customers. Not exactly a sound business practice, is it?

Here is a picture of the sign in my local Subway store.

Have I misunderstood something? Does "New Freshly Made GARLIC BREAD" mean something different than I think it does?

Pondering Imponderables

2006-03-15T21:15:00.000-05:00

If a man opens his mouth, and his wife is not present, is he still wrong?

Creative Parenting

2006-02-22T13:33:00.000-05:00

I have managed to pull off the parenting coup of the year. My son, who is 5 years old, was having trouble getting to sleep at night, because of his fear of the scary monsters in his bedroom. This went on for weeks and weeks, until I finally had enough of it.

A few nights ago, I convinced him that the monsters were not bad monsters, out to harm him. I told him that they were really nice monsters, despite their scary appearance, and that they were merely keeping an eye on him for me, and letting me know if he was in trouble. And that they would come downstairs with me to watch television after he was asleep.

He seemed to understand this idea, and decided that they should no longer be called monsters, because they were not bad beings. From now on, he decided, they would be called "nicers", because they are nice, not scary. So, according to my son, a nice monster is a nicer. This is working so well that he told me this morning that he didn't have any scary dreams last night, since he named them "nicers", only good dreams.

Can you tell that I am rather pleased with myself for this little bit of creative parenting?

The Decline of the (North) American Empire

2006-02-17T10:32:00.000-05:00

There is a fundamental problem in America today. At last year's Superbowl half-time show, Janet Jackson showed a mostly naked breast. This caused an uproar of gigantic proportions. The US Government went ballistic, the right-wing nut jobs had a fit, and the FCC went apoplectic over this, and suddenly, all media was being watched like a hawk, with censorship running rampant. This year, there was a concerted effort to keep the Superbowl half-time show G rated, even to the point of censoring Mick Jagger on three separate occurances while he performed songs.

Now, contrast this with the fact that you can see violence in the news, on television, in the movies, etc., in large doses, on a daily basis. You can see advertisements for Grand Theft Auto: Vice City on television all the time, and see shows depicting murder, beatings, dismemberments, and rape in prime time. But show a nipple, and the titty cops will be all over you for obscenity violations.

Does this sound rational to anyone? Something beautiful, like a woman's breast, is immoral and bad and should be censored, but a gang member raping and killing a woman? Show it on prime-time television! That's the stuff of great cop shows! Can't censor that!

People need to get a grip, and figure out what the real harm to society is. If I had a choice between my son seeing some woman's naked breast, and him seeing some gang-banger killing some innocent by-standers in a drive-by shooting, guess which I'd choose? The choice is an easy one. And if you think this problem is limited to the borders of the US of A, guess again. We get a spillover effect up here in Canada. Since we watch a significant amount of American television shows and sporting events, what they show or don't show affects us equally, and that is not a good thing.

I Wanted To Be Wrong

2006-02-12T15:53:00.000-05:00

Do you know what bothers me most about the new Prime Minister? I had always distrusted this Conservative from the West. I thought he was a slimy snake from the moment I first heard of him. I'm not even entirely sure why I didn't like him, but I didn't. It could have been because he reminded me of a Bush wannabe. Who knows. I never thought he was fit to run the government, certainly not in the way he claimed he wanted to run it. But you know what? I really, really, wanted to be proven wrong. Never before had I wanted to be wrong about something as much as I wanted to be wrong about Stephen Harper. And in his first week in office, I feel he has proven me right. I desperately wanted to be wrong. But I wasn't. And I am really saddened and disappointed about that.

It Needs To Be Said

2006-02-12T12:17:00.000-05:00

Just remember one thing, folks. David Emerson, former Liberal and now a Conservative MP and Minister of International Trade, and Michael Fortier, who didn't even bother to run in the election, and is now the Minister of Public Works and Government Services (where the sponsorship scandal started in the first place) have something in common with David Dingwall, the former head of the Royal Canadian Mint: they seem to believe that they are entitled to their entitlements.

This honeymoon seems to have ended faster than a one night stand in Las Vegas.

An Inside View of Canadian Politics

2006-02-11T17:16:00.000-05:00

I have just discovered the blog of an elected Conservative MP from southern Ontario, Garth Turner, MP. His blog is called The Turner Report. It gives an interesting perspective of the turmoil and other goings on inside the Conservative Government. I encourage everyone to give it a read.

Different Party, Same Lack of Ethics and Morals

2006-02-11T16:44:00.000-05:00

It looks like the Conservatives will continue with the hypocracy that started the day of the swearing in of the new government. According to a CBC new article, which can be found here, David Emerson has no intention of stepping down and running in a bi-election. To quote him directly,

"No, I'm not going to quit."

"We've got at least three, perhaps more, members of Parliament who have crossed the floor or opted to sit as an Independent. Frankly, my circumstances are not any different than those. As, and when, Parliament changes the rules to apply to all members of Parliament, I will abide by those rules," he said after getting off a flight at the Vancouver airport.

This is what we have to look forward to for the next couple of years. No matter what the Conservative Party has said in the past is wrong, and shouldn't be done, they will do it themselves, simply because they can. Never mind that they campaigned on a platform of government reform and cleaning up government corruption and immorality. Now that they are elected, they have shown that they are no different than the Liberals that they are replacing.

They say this is different, because he didn't cross the floor to prop up a government looking at a possible non-confidence vote, with the promise of a nice Cabinet portfolio. I disagree completely with this. This is exactly the same. Emerson was enticed to cross the floor, with the promise of a nice Cabinet portfolio to help prop up the government. The only difference is that Stephen Harper didn't wait until the vote was imminent before starting the enticement game.

I'll give Prime Minister Harper credit where credit is due. He is certainly no procrastinator. It only took him a few days to make people think he has no parliamentary ethics at all, and that he'll do whatever it takes to hold on to power, now that he has it. Gee, why am I having a feeling of deja vu all over again?

Congratulations, Mr. Prime Minister. You've proven to everyone that a businessman from the West can be just as shady and underhanded a leader as lawyers from Quebec have been. I can't wait to see what he does next to make people wish they had voted for the Liberals or the New Democratic Party.

The New Conservative Government

2006-02-10T09:20:00.000-05:00

Stephen Harper is the new Prime Minister of Canada. Last night, he spent his first night at 24 Sussex Drive, the official residence of the Prime Minister. He has been Prime Minister for less than a week, and already, he has done things he has previously spoken out against.

For example: On many occasions, he has spoken against appointments to the Senate, desiring to reform Senate. So what was one of his first acts of office, just after being sworn in? He appointed someone to Cabinet who did not even run in the previous election, never mind actually wanting to run for a seat. And to give this guy some political legitimacy, Harper appointed him to the Senate. This was his first few hours as Prime Minister.

Another example: On the same day, in the same time as he was doing the above act, he announced that he had coerced someone who got elected as a Liberal to cross the floor and get sworn in as a Conservative Cabinet Minister. I seem to recall that he was quite upset when Belinda Stronach, a member of his own party, did this to him last year. I recall that he declared that this was an ethics violation, though not against the rules of the House of Commons. So let me ask you this, Mr. Harper. Is it more ethical when you do it than when then Prime Minister Paul Martin did the exact same thing?

I am left to wonder if we are in for more of the same sort of governing that we got from the Liberals. We wanted to send the Liberals a message that we are tired of the same old politics as usual act we've been getting for years. Apparently, Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party didn't get that message either.

The End Of Speeding?

2006-02-09T12:27:00.000-05:00

Could we see the end of motor vehicles exceeding the speed limit whenever the driver feels like it? Not only is this possible, but we could see it happen in our lifetimes. All you would need to accomplish this would be a good GPS system, with access to information about what the acceptable speed limit is for any given road, which likely already exists. Put this GPS system in an automobile, have it be able to communicate with a computer that can control the accelerator, and suddenly you cannot exceed the posted speed limit on any road in any area serviced by the GPS system. Emergency vehicles would simply not have this device attached, and would thus be able to go as fast as necessary to get to the scene of the emergency.

Think this is merely science fiction and the mindless rantings of a delusional blogger? Think again. All the necessary technology exists today. The only missing component is legislation mandating that such a setup be installed in all new vehicles, and it would be a done deal.

We may not see this system become mandatory in the short term, but who knows what tomorrow could bring. Reality can often be stranger than science fiction.

More gouging at the "service" station

2006-02-09T07:12:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I went to a "service" station, to put some air into the tires of my vehicle. When I got there, lo and behold, there was a new pump, with a slot in it, and a sticker proclaiming that, for the privilege of using some air, it would cost 50 cents. I don't know how long the 50 cents would have given me to put air into my tires. I didn't stick around to find out. I am sure there must be some station somewhere that doesn't want to gouge me further for some air. What's next? Charging me for using a squeegie to clean my windows? A surcharge for the use of the water in the squeegie holder? Where does it end?

I remember a time, not that long ago, where air was free, and these places actually tried to make you feel like they cared about your business. They would pump your gas, check your oil level, top up the windshield washer fluid, check your air pressure in your tires if they looked a little low, and even put more air in, if you asked nicely and it wasn't too busy at the pumps at that time. Today, all you get is a person behind the cash register at the self-pump station, and 50 cent shots of air for your tires.

It seems to me that every day, the oil companies are looking for more and more ways to take the "service" out of service station. I guess that is why they are now being referred to as gas bars. Any day now, they will implement a cover charge, like some regular bars do. Then, you will be forced to pay just to get to the pump. Maybe charge a fuel pump rental fee too. Where will their greed and need to gouge the customer end?

Each day, as I look around me, I see the term "customer service" mean less and less. Soon it will be a completely meaningless phrase. That will be a sad day indeed.

Another Pet Peeve

2006-01-02T11:22:00.000-05:00

This is another of my pet peeves. Every week day, I drive 70 - 100 km to and from work, most of that being on highway 417. When it is raining heavily, and cars are throwing up lots of mist into the air from their tires, it can be a bit difficult to see the cars ahead of you. Especially since most of them are not intelligent enough to turn on their lights. They seem to think that their daytime lights are sufficient. And they would be, if I could somehow, magically, see the front of their vehicles from a position several hundred feet behind them. It is even worse when these same idiots are driving a car that is about the same colour as the mist, or a wet road. That makes the contrast easy to see. Can you feel the sarcasm dripping?

In the future, please turn on your lights. Everyone around you will appreciate it. And it will make it easier to make an insurance claim when you get run into. If the insurance adjuster finds out you didn't have your lights on, then you will be found to be partially at fault, and therefore won't get fully reimbursed for everything you feel you should be entitled to.

Plus, it is the logical and courteous thing to do.

More RIAA Fallout

2005-09-18T13:14:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, my sister bought a music file from one of the "legal" music download sites, Puretracks.com. Once she downloaded it, she tried to play it in her MP3 player, which is why she bought it in the first place. She then discovered that it was in WMA (Microsoft's proprietary format) and her MP3 player did not support that format. So, she asked me for help in converting it to MP3, so she could play it in her MP3 player. I couldn't even play this file, as it was encumbered with DRM (Digital Rights Management), so that only she could play it.

I then suggested she burn it to a CD, using Microsoft Windows Media Player, which could play the tune just fine, and then just rip it back to MP3 from there. So, she burned it on a CD, and she could play the CD just fine. She was using RealPlayer to play the CD. She then tried to use the same player to rip the CD track back to an MP3, and it wouldn't let her. It was as though the DRM had followed the track onto the CD. Several hours later, she still couldn't play the track she legally paid for on her MP3 player.

The fallout from this has been a very bad user experience, with someone willing to actually PAY for music being denied the ability to use the legally purchased song on her music player of choice. This means that she will never use this service again, and probably never use a legal download site again. All because the RIAA has it's head up its ass so far that it has lost sight of the customers it is supposed to be attracting to its offerings. All the RIAA can see these days is its collective upper colons.

Here is a radical idea for the RIAA, which I already know will fall on deaf ears. How about thinking about the customers for a change, instead of merely thinking of ways to preserve an outdated business model and trying to find new ways to gouge the customers and the musicians too. The RIAA is becoming an anachronism, and desperately needs to be put out of its misery.

07/07/2005 London Bombings

2005-07-30T13:45:00.000-04:00

I have been giving a lot of thought lately to the cowardly bombing attacks in London, England in recent weeks. As I understand it, the purpose of terrorism is either to terrorize a group of people into doing what the terrorist organizations want them to do, or to act as a form of retaliation. In the case of the London bombings, it must certainly be the latter. Otherwise, the terrorists that performed the cowardly act of bombing a civilian population must be dumber than a door knob. It is possible that I am wrong, and the terrorists are indeed dumber than a door knob, and that they actually expect these attacks to convince Britian to withdraw from the activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a highly unlikely outcome of the attacks.

In the last 100 years, London has been heavily attacked by Germany in vicious air raids when it was under the rule of Adolph Hitler, and more recently, when the IRA would perform frequent terrorist attacks in London and other cities in England. At none of these times did England even consider surrendering or changing their behaviour during WWII or any time since.

Given this, why would a bunch of cowardly terrorists think that a few bombs on public transit systems would scare the British or the British Government? As both Hitler and the IRA discovered, terrorist type attacks only make the British more resolute in their beliefs and actions.

As has been mentioned in other places, the terrorists have messed with the wrong people. The British may not be known for aggressive behaviour internationally, but they are definitely a country it is better to be a friend of than an enemy of.

My condolences go out to the victims of the recent cowardly attacks and their friends and families. Your friends in North America grieve with you.

PETA - People for the Evil Treatment of Animals

2005-07-23T15:07:00.000-04:00

"Ethical" Defined
After more than 100 dead dogs were dumped in a trash dumpster over four weeks, police in Ahoskie, N.C., kept an eye on the trash receptacle behind a supermarket. Sure enough, a van drove up and officers watched the occupants throw in heavy plastic bags. They detained the two people in the van and found 18 dead dogs in plastic bags in the dumpster, including puppies; 13 more dead dogs were still in the van. Police say the van is registered to the headquarters of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the two occupants, Andrew B. Cook, 24, and Adria Joy Hinkle, 27, identified themselves as PETA employees. An autopsy performed on one of the dogs found it was healthy before it was killed. Police say PETA has been picking up the animals -- alive -- from North Carolina animal shelters, promising to find them good homes. Cook and Hinkle have been charged with 62 felony counts of animal cruelty. In
response to the arrests PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said it's against the group's policy for employees to dump animals in the trash, but "that for some animals in North Carolina, there is no kinder option than euthanasia." (Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald) ...Oops, my mistake: that's "Playing God" defined.

In his author's notes section, Cassingham had more to say about this story:

The more I learn about PETA, the less I think of them. The story of them killing animals isn't even unusual. According to PETA's own filings, in 2004 PETA killed 86.3 percent of the animals entrusted to its care -- a number that's rising, not falling. Meanwhile, the SPCA in PETA's home town (Norfolk, Va.) was able to find loving homes for 73 percent of the animals put in its care. A shortage of funds? Nope: last year PETA took in $29 million in tax-exempt donations. It simply has other priorities for the funds, like funding terrorism (yes, really). But don't take my word for it: I got my figures from
http://www.PETAkillsAnimals.com -- and they have copies of PETA's state and federal filings to back it up. The bottom line: if you donate money to PETA because you think they care for and about animals, you need to think some more. PETA literally yells and screams about how others "kill animals" but this is how they operate? Pathetic.

And you know what I wonder? PETA's official count of animals they kill is 86.3 percent. But if they're going around picking up animals, killing them while they drive around and not even giving them a chance to be adopted, and then destroying the evidence by dumping the bodies in the trash, are those deaths being reported? My guess: no. While 86.3 percent is awful, the actual number is probably much, much higher. How dare they lecture anyone about the "ethical" treatment of animals!

(This is True is a weekly column featuring weird-but-true news stories from around the world, and has been published since 1994. Click the link for info about free subscriptions.)

The more I learn about PETA, the less I think of them. I agree with Randy on this issue.

Bad Drivers, Part One

2005-06-03T17:54:00.000-04:00

Why is it that people have this complulsive need to drive in the middle of a road if the road does not have a line down the middle of it. As soon as the yellow line is removed, people somehow manage to forget the rules of the road, and think that the road must be for their personal use only, and that no other vehicles could possibly come in the opposite direction.

People, listen up! If a road is wide enough for two vehicles side by side, and there are no "One Way" types of signs on the roadway, STAY ON YOUR OWN SIDE OF THE ROAD!

Turning 40 - Redux

2005-05-29T17:53:00.000-04:00

It has been a week since I turned 40, and after having some time to allow it to sink in, it is not so bad after all. I like to think of myself as having 20 years of experience at being 20. :-)

The down side is that I am now in that age bracket where employers label me as "older" or "up there in age" or whatever the label of choice these days are. In the Technology Industry, youth has its advantages when you are job hunting. However, this old rat still has a few things to offer that the youngins can't.

As they say, age and guile beat youth and vigour every time. :-)

Blogebrity

2005-05-26T07:06:00.000-04:00

You know this whole blogging thing has gotten to be popular when someone has the bright idea to do an online blog celebrity site. Blogebrity hopes to become an online magazine, with a quarterly print publication too. I wish them the best of luck.

Another year older

2005-05-22T12:54:00.000-04:00

Today is my 40th birthday. Yee ha. If life begins at 40, what ends?