It's true - I've been active on Twitter for almost a year and find it suits most of what I have to say. That is, 140 characters is usually enough to start a rant or jam my sharp stick in someone's virtual eye or just start a textual fight. If I need to make it longer, I use TwitLonger which works fine up to, like, 250 characters or something. And truthfully, I've been absorbed by the Toronto mayoral election race, supporting my friend Rocco Rossi on Twitter until his departure from the race this past week. You can follow me on Twitter @RossMorley. I also have @FirstWorldComms which I will use shortly for commercial reasons.
I have also pretty much abandoned Facebook - Twitter is so much better for the frequent quick updates and multi-logue conversations. My Facebook account will remain active I guess if someone wants to see what I've left there. Otherwise I'm not much interested in it any more...not that I was in the first place either, truly.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Middle East: Withdraw Now, Turn It Around Long Term w/ Information.
UPDATE POST: September 17, 2010
I am happy to hear of a Voice of America program remarkably similar to the one I called for in my last paragraph below, starting with 20,000 radios in remote areas of Afghanistan. I can hardly take credit for the program but it sure seems like the right thing to do and I extend my congratulations and best wishes to those involved in its launch and future success.
ORIGINAL POST: February 10, 2010
I recommend total withdrawal of NATO & western forces from ME altogether - keep quick-strike whack-a-mole capability to ensure flow of oil while retool the west to get off ME oil dependency. Leave the ME to fight among themselves, policed by Russia, India, China & Israel.
Western counties will do much better with 10,000 clandestine feet on the ground than with half-a-million heavily equipped military getting their asses kicked daily by asymmetrical forces. The quick-strike capability is in the carrier battle-groups that already cruise those waters. Every nation needs its equivalent of Homeland Security in perpetuity.
There should also be a relentless information campaign - drop millions of easily-hidden wind-up radios w/ his & her earbuds (one each so while couples listen together they can still hear the fundamentalist thugs coming) and broadcast powerful radio programs 24 X 7 in their local dialects. Airdrop books by the millions - and flood them by radio with info: how to read, do math, basic healthcare, agricultural techniques, human rights, womens' rights, political pluralism & democracy, basic economics, world news. Make it relentless, easy to understand and universal and for decades. That will work much better than sending in the Marines.
I am happy to hear of a Voice of America program remarkably similar to the one I called for in my last paragraph below, starting with 20,000 radios in remote areas of Afghanistan. I can hardly take credit for the program but it sure seems like the right thing to do and I extend my congratulations and best wishes to those involved in its launch and future success.
ORIGINAL POST: February 10, 2010
I recommend total withdrawal of NATO & western forces from ME altogether - keep quick-strike whack-a-mole capability to ensure flow of oil while retool the west to get off ME oil dependency. Leave the ME to fight among themselves, policed by Russia, India, China & Israel.
Western counties will do much better with 10,000 clandestine feet on the ground than with half-a-million heavily equipped military getting their asses kicked daily by asymmetrical forces. The quick-strike capability is in the carrier battle-groups that already cruise those waters. Every nation needs its equivalent of Homeland Security in perpetuity.
There should also be a relentless information campaign - drop millions of easily-hidden wind-up radios w/ his & her earbuds (one each so while couples listen together they can still hear the fundamentalist thugs coming) and broadcast powerful radio programs 24 X 7 in their local dialects. Airdrop books by the millions - and flood them by radio with info: how to read, do math, basic healthcare, agricultural techniques, human rights, womens' rights, political pluralism & democracy, basic economics, world news. Make it relentless, easy to understand and universal and for decades. That will work much better than sending in the Marines.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
TTC Must Fire Adam Giambrone Immediately
So, Giambrone lied to everyone, on all sides, wanted it all without regard to impact on anyone. No place for that sociopath in public office.
Chairman or floor-sweeper: what does TTC do with employees who have sex on premises; fire his ass is what they should do, with no severance or payout
Chairman or floor-sweeper: what does TTC do with employees who have sex on premises; fire his ass is what they should do, with no severance or payout
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Ominous Events - The Plan for Iran is Coming Together.
Seems like forever that US administrations, Israeli administrations and other governments on the UN Security Council and not, have been talking sanctions and attacks on Iranian nuclear installations as ways to, in order of preference, encourage Iran to stop development of the nuclear weapons or to deliver a series of knockout punches to Iran's nuclear infrastructure, thereby stopping Iran's such development unilaterally.
Over more recent months the policy of ever-enhanced sanctions - i.e. slow strangulation of the Iranian middle-class - has been worked, and sometimes with surprising agreement from the permanent UN Security Council members including those traditionally more likely to support Iran , i.e. Russia & China. But as the effective life of sanctions draws nearer to its end and the attack option beckons, kind of like a late-night end-of-the-line twice-as-ugly any-port-in-a-storm option, China grows less omni-partisan. Maybe it's their growing global military influence, or their desire to use Iran as a proxy to keep USA off-balance, or maybe it's the US' economic & financial cojones firmly in its fist - whatever combination it may be, China feels empowered to flip the bird at the USA and UN on the question of Iranian sanctions. Fine - China has earned the right to rebuff the US once in a while - like when Obama had to kowtow upon his visit to China back in the fall. And now - in need of demonstrating to the home front that he's not the soft-headed pushover some have labelled him, and to give the Chinese a little pushback - Obama has approved sale of some $4.6B of weapons to Taiwan. Defensive weapons, that is. Taiwan wants more, and offensive too, but Obama has said "not yet". Pretty plain to see - Obama is effectvely saying to China "You don't see any particular need to control Iranian nuclear capability? Great - that means Taiwan can be better-armed too!" We'll see if i) Taiwan gets the submarines and fighter jets it asked for - or not and, ii) whether China comes around to support final sanctions on Iran - or not.
Separate, but in my mind clearly related to the Iranian intransigence:
- US military delivers Patriot defensive anti-missile systems to several countries either bordering on, adjacent to, or reachable by the missiles of Iran.
- US military runs test of ship-launched defensive anti-missile systems in the Pacific, ostensibly to show North Korea who's the boss, but obviously Iran is watching & listening too
- US is at or very near completion of its super-sized bunker-busting bomb, designed to detonate far below the surface of, for example, a hollowed-out mountain where Iran thinks (hopes) its nuclear installations are safe
- resident of rural south-eastern Newfoundland report several large flying objects (missiles) passing through their skies, visible for some minutes until they vanished across the horizon. That would be the test of large (bunker-buster-sized) cruise missiles (flying relatively slowly @ 400+ mph - that's why they were visible for so long) with large exhaust flames (very heavy cargo means big rocket motors) in a undersea-launch test near a rocky rural coastline (as if from the Persian Gulf).
Obama needs to demonstrate a number of things at home and abroad and, unhappily enough, an Iranian attack would achieve a number of his objectives. So long as he can defend Iran's neighbours and Israel from retaliatory strikes, he may be much more likely to go at it than ever before.
I wonder if anyne has given thought to striking only the entrances to Iran's nuclear installations with theater-sized neutron bombs - i.e., small nuclear explosions that don't kill many people but render the sites permanently 'hot' i.e. highly radioactive virtually forever, and therefore almost impossible to continue working. Not a nice option but maybe better than wholesale mass conventional destruction.
Blame it all on Scott Brown.
Over more recent months the policy of ever-enhanced sanctions - i.e. slow strangulation of the Iranian middle-class - has been worked, and sometimes with surprising agreement from the permanent UN Security Council members including those traditionally more likely to support Iran , i.e. Russia & China. But as the effective life of sanctions draws nearer to its end and the attack option beckons, kind of like a late-night end-of-the-line twice-as-ugly any-port-in-a-storm option, China grows less omni-partisan. Maybe it's their growing global military influence, or their desire to use Iran as a proxy to keep USA off-balance, or maybe it's the US' economic & financial cojones firmly in its fist - whatever combination it may be, China feels empowered to flip the bird at the USA and UN on the question of Iranian sanctions. Fine - China has earned the right to rebuff the US once in a while - like when Obama had to kowtow upon his visit to China back in the fall. And now - in need of demonstrating to the home front that he's not the soft-headed pushover some have labelled him, and to give the Chinese a little pushback - Obama has approved sale of some $4.6B of weapons to Taiwan. Defensive weapons, that is. Taiwan wants more, and offensive too, but Obama has said "not yet". Pretty plain to see - Obama is effectvely saying to China "You don't see any particular need to control Iranian nuclear capability? Great - that means Taiwan can be better-armed too!" We'll see if i) Taiwan gets the submarines and fighter jets it asked for - or not and, ii) whether China comes around to support final sanctions on Iran - or not.
Separate, but in my mind clearly related to the Iranian intransigence:
- US military delivers Patriot defensive anti-missile systems to several countries either bordering on, adjacent to, or reachable by the missiles of Iran.
- US military runs test of ship-launched defensive anti-missile systems in the Pacific, ostensibly to show North Korea who's the boss, but obviously Iran is watching & listening too
- US is at or very near completion of its super-sized bunker-busting bomb, designed to detonate far below the surface of, for example, a hollowed-out mountain where Iran thinks (hopes) its nuclear installations are safe
- resident of rural south-eastern Newfoundland report several large flying objects (missiles) passing through their skies, visible for some minutes until they vanished across the horizon. That would be the test of large (bunker-buster-sized) cruise missiles (flying relatively slowly @ 400+ mph - that's why they were visible for so long) with large exhaust flames (very heavy cargo means big rocket motors) in a undersea-launch test near a rocky rural coastline (as if from the Persian Gulf).
Obama needs to demonstrate a number of things at home and abroad and, unhappily enough, an Iranian attack would achieve a number of his objectives. So long as he can defend Iran's neighbours and Israel from retaliatory strikes, he may be much more likely to go at it than ever before.
I wonder if anyne has given thought to striking only the entrances to Iran's nuclear installations with theater-sized neutron bombs - i.e., small nuclear explosions that don't kill many people but render the sites permanently 'hot' i.e. highly radioactive virtually forever, and therefore almost impossible to continue working. Not a nice option but maybe better than wholesale mass conventional destruction.
Blame it all on Scott Brown.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Unemployment Disaster in America
For some time I have followed the writings of a brilliant economist, David P. Goldman. His no-nonsense analysis and clear expression are rather refreshing, if not a bit depressing, and are uncannily accurate, IMHO.
Here is a link to a recent log post that, as usual, tells it like it is. Is this one refreshing? No, it's more like bracing.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/spengler/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=673&p=11600#p11600
Here is a link to a recent log post that, as usual, tells it like it is. Is this one refreshing? No, it's more like bracing.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/spengler/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=673&p=11600#p11600
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Canada Slow to Implement Wireless Payment Processes
So what else is new? Typical of Canadian business to be slow, at least in part to squeeze the maximum return out of their now-outmoded systems and processes.
I bet the biggest delay in implementing this business process technology is the arm-wrestling between the banks, Interac, VISA, wireless providers, to see who'll own the solution - because who owns the solution will own the revenue stream to gouge out of consumers and retailers.
I loved that part in the Globe & Mail article about leaving home and only needing your car keys & cell phone, implying no wallet necessary - will they be doing away with drivers' licenses, loyalty cards, other credit cards etc?
Gotta love those marketers...why not put an identity chip under the skin on the back of your hand - let it communicate with everything - then you really won't need a wallet...
I bet the biggest delay in implementing this business process technology is the arm-wrestling between the banks, Interac, VISA, wireless providers, to see who'll own the solution - because who owns the solution will own the revenue stream to gouge out of consumers and retailers.
I loved that part in the Globe & Mail article about leaving home and only needing your car keys & cell phone, implying no wallet necessary - will they be doing away with drivers' licenses, loyalty cards, other credit cards etc?
Gotta love those marketers...why not put an identity chip under the skin on the back of your hand - let it communicate with everything - then you really won't need a wallet...
China Goes Shopping with Fists Full of US$
China is buying hard assets everywhere - what will be very interesting to see if when China comes shopping in the US - buying real estate, farmland, industrial capacity, technology, big corporations - whether the US will allow those purchases or deny them based on 'strategic' reasons like the denied Continental Oil bid of several years ago. I wouldn't want to be the US official that has to say to China "your US dollars are no good in the USA"...
If China buys Canadian assets with US dollars, we'd better turn those dollars around real fast - get them back out the door again before they drop in value.
LOL - holding US dollars will eventually become like a game of hot potato - who'll get burned holding them? LOL
If China buys Canadian assets with US dollars, we'd better turn those dollars around real fast - get them back out the door again before they drop in value.
LOL - holding US dollars will eventually become like a game of hot potato - who'll get burned holding them? LOL
Monday, April 13, 2009
No, Really - You Are What You Eat
I remember, when I was very young, an ageing relative slicing a big fatty hunk off the Sunday roast beef and with a conspiratorial grin, whispering to me "this is the very best part" before popping it into his mouth and chomping it down. Back then and in the centuries prior, that would have been the most commonly-held attitude - nothing better for one than a big hunk of fatty red meat.
Fast-forward to the current day. Anyone paying attention to modern nutrion facts knows that big fatty hunk off the Sunday roast beef is near #1 on the scale of 'food that'll kill ya'. Funny, too, how over the years a certain fast-food standard is described coloquially as 'heart-attack-in-a-box'. Of course fast-foods are everywhere - some are designed & constructed with low-fat, low-sodium, low-sugar objectives, while many pile in the tempting (addicting?) ingredients with the predictable destruction-of-your-health result. And its not only fast foods, is it? Most folks know what's bad for them, but sometimes the urge for fats & salts & sugars is overwhelming, we cave in and feel the guilt after the fact, the damage done.
Food designers employed by mass-market food companies with profit objectives repeatedly push our culinary hot buttons with the same combinations - fat, sugar, salt - it's ingrained in us to crave these things. To be sure, in the distant past those built-in cravings were probably a good thing, providing incentive to hunt & gather more effectively and satisfy the cravings. The meager amounts of fats, salt & sugars ingested were probably exactly right, taking into account the remainder of the nuts & berries diet and rigorous lifestyle.
Modern healthcare struggles to combat many after-the-fact diseases in the population. Some - like obesity leading to diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, colon cancer - are practically epidemic and contribute to huge morbidity and mortality numbers. The drain on every part of society is gigantic, not forgetting the sorrow and heartache in families where health problems take centre stage.
When George H. Bush (the first one, remember him?) said on network TV that he hated broccoli and would never eat it, by far preferring to crunch away on a bag of deep-fried pork rinds, I thought his comment sealed the fate of thousands of future-but-unnecessary sufferers of colon cancer across America. Jeez, talk about blowing a leadership opportunity!
In my opinion, pro-active measures need to be taken on every front to slow the growth of, indeed, to roll back the tide of an unhealthy population at large. Of course there are some things that have been recommended since the beginning of time (well, since Health class in Grade One at an rate) like the Canada Food Guide's dietary recommendations - well nigh impossible for a kid to comply with. Fitness levels too. One problem with best-practices is diet & exercise regimens still don't reach a substantial portion of the population - a majority even, I am guessing, and nothing changes those predictabe morbidity / mortality results.
What do we need? Like with most things, intervention is required to effect real change. Yes - I'm talking government here, the approach we love to hate. Here's how it goes, with a sliding scale of either taxes levied or credited based on what the food business at all levels contributes positively or negatively, to the relative healthfulness (is that a word?) of the food products that reach the consuming public.
Products that would attract more taxes would be any 'serving' of food that includes statistically disproportionate amounts of daily fat, salt or sugar intake as part of a typical daily menu. Like when one hamburger patty makes for 44% of daily fat intake. Or when a kid's boxed drink has 35% of daily sugar intake. Or when a restaurant menu is regularly inordinately heavily-salted to induce purchase of more beverages. Businesses selling the product would be required to collect & remit a health incentive tax on each qualifying product.
Products that would attract tax credits could include increased undetectable fibre in 'white bread' burger buns, reduced sugars & salts in sauces, grilling or broiling instead of frying, moving to 'no-salt' alternatives or promoting healthy fresh foods as part of a fast-food meal. Imagine receiving a shiny crisp MacIntosh apple or a ripe juicy Niagara peach or pear with every drive-thru meal? And there's no one better at handling & distribution of such foods than the fast-food folks. Sure would put a smile on the Ontario fruit-growers' faces. And with lower costs via tax credits, I have no doubt the consuming public would respond positively to such initiatives.
Our governments tax liquor, tobacco and a host of other 'bad' stuff. It's time to tax bad food stuff - and to offer tax credits for 'good' food stuff. Call it the healthcare surtax and send the revenues directly to the publicly-funded healthcare providers and researchers. Let's make it easy for the public-at-large to make good nutrition decisions at all levels and as a society we can reap the rewards that accompany a healthier population. A healthy win-win for all.
Season's Greetings - eat your vegetables!
Fast-forward to the current day. Anyone paying attention to modern nutrion facts knows that big fatty hunk off the Sunday roast beef is near #1 on the scale of 'food that'll kill ya'. Funny, too, how over the years a certain fast-food standard is described coloquially as 'heart-attack-in-a-box'. Of course fast-foods are everywhere - some are designed & constructed with low-fat, low-sodium, low-sugar objectives, while many pile in the tempting (addicting?) ingredients with the predictable destruction-of-your-health result. And its not only fast foods, is it? Most folks know what's bad for them, but sometimes the urge for fats & salts & sugars is overwhelming, we cave in and feel the guilt after the fact, the damage done.
Food designers employed by mass-market food companies with profit objectives repeatedly push our culinary hot buttons with the same combinations - fat, sugar, salt - it's ingrained in us to crave these things. To be sure, in the distant past those built-in cravings were probably a good thing, providing incentive to hunt & gather more effectively and satisfy the cravings. The meager amounts of fats, salt & sugars ingested were probably exactly right, taking into account the remainder of the nuts & berries diet and rigorous lifestyle.
Modern healthcare struggles to combat many after-the-fact diseases in the population. Some - like obesity leading to diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, colon cancer - are practically epidemic and contribute to huge morbidity and mortality numbers. The drain on every part of society is gigantic, not forgetting the sorrow and heartache in families where health problems take centre stage.
When George H. Bush (the first one, remember him?) said on network TV that he hated broccoli and would never eat it, by far preferring to crunch away on a bag of deep-fried pork rinds, I thought his comment sealed the fate of thousands of future-but-unnecessary sufferers of colon cancer across America. Jeez, talk about blowing a leadership opportunity!
In my opinion, pro-active measures need to be taken on every front to slow the growth of, indeed, to roll back the tide of an unhealthy population at large. Of course there are some things that have been recommended since the beginning of time (well, since Health class in Grade One at an rate) like the Canada Food Guide's dietary recommendations - well nigh impossible for a kid to comply with. Fitness levels too. One problem with best-practices is diet & exercise regimens still don't reach a substantial portion of the population - a majority even, I am guessing, and nothing changes those predictabe morbidity / mortality results.
What do we need? Like with most things, intervention is required to effect real change. Yes - I'm talking government here, the approach we love to hate. Here's how it goes, with a sliding scale of either taxes levied or credited based on what the food business at all levels contributes positively or negatively, to the relative healthfulness (is that a word?) of the food products that reach the consuming public.
Products that would attract more taxes would be any 'serving' of food that includes statistically disproportionate amounts of daily fat, salt or sugar intake as part of a typical daily menu. Like when one hamburger patty makes for 44% of daily fat intake. Or when a kid's boxed drink has 35% of daily sugar intake. Or when a restaurant menu is regularly inordinately heavily-salted to induce purchase of more beverages. Businesses selling the product would be required to collect & remit a health incentive tax on each qualifying product.
Products that would attract tax credits could include increased undetectable fibre in 'white bread' burger buns, reduced sugars & salts in sauces, grilling or broiling instead of frying, moving to 'no-salt' alternatives or promoting healthy fresh foods as part of a fast-food meal. Imagine receiving a shiny crisp MacIntosh apple or a ripe juicy Niagara peach or pear with every drive-thru meal? And there's no one better at handling & distribution of such foods than the fast-food folks. Sure would put a smile on the Ontario fruit-growers' faces. And with lower costs via tax credits, I have no doubt the consuming public would respond positively to such initiatives.
Our governments tax liquor, tobacco and a host of other 'bad' stuff. It's time to tax bad food stuff - and to offer tax credits for 'good' food stuff. Call it the healthcare surtax and send the revenues directly to the publicly-funded healthcare providers and researchers. Let's make it easy for the public-at-large to make good nutrition decisions at all levels and as a society we can reap the rewards that accompany a healthier population. A healthy win-win for all.
Season's Greetings - eat your vegetables!
To Those Who Think Obama's Bank 'Stress Tests' are Stupid...
‘Stress Test’ is new-speak for Risk Analysis, right?
Now, to be fair, Risk Analysis performed by the banks & others on themselves hasn’t yielded the best results in recent quarters - kind of like having bad cops investigate themselves isn’t it?
Maybe the folks (the Obama team, primarily) trying to keep the world afloat and fix the problems aren’t so sanguine about the veracity of the banks’ own Risk Analysis so they think it prudent to do their own - on behalf of those pesky taxpayers…?
And - if you think the finance & economic problems are all behind us - Ha!! - just wait 'til the stress test results are announced!
Now, to be fair, Risk Analysis performed by the banks & others on themselves hasn’t yielded the best results in recent quarters - kind of like having bad cops investigate themselves isn’t it?
Maybe the folks (the Obama team, primarily) trying to keep the world afloat and fix the problems aren’t so sanguine about the veracity of the banks’ own Risk Analysis so they think it prudent to do their own - on behalf of those pesky taxpayers…?
And - if you think the finance & economic problems are all behind us - Ha!! - just wait 'til the stress test results are announced!
What US President Hasn't Used a Teleprompter?
What the heck is up with this teleprompter bulls***t? Hasn't every president in recent years used a teleprompter? If a guy is to give a speech, is it somehow un-presidential to not have it memorized, word for word? Would you rather Obama spend several hours memorizing & rehearsing a speech in front of a mirror, or is his time better spent continuing to meet and interact with his cabinet and others to get the business of the day done?
Jeez, next it'll be a scandal all about why the president's shoelaces aren't washed daily.
Isn't it enough all the bad actors outside the US are sniping away - do Obama's fellow-citizens have to talk s**t all the time too?
Pathetic.
Jeez, next it'll be a scandal all about why the president's shoelaces aren't washed daily.
Isn't it enough all the bad actors outside the US are sniping away - do Obama's fellow-citizens have to talk s**t all the time too?
Pathetic.
Canadian Foreign Staffers Need to Speak the Host Country Language.
IMHO it doesn't matter what country our staffers are appointed to - they should always have a better-then-working knowledge of the host-country language for a number of good reasons.
No sensible national government sends diplomats to a foreign-language country without proper language training. To send untrained staff (and it doesn't matter which Canadian government does it) cripples their efforts on our behalf, is an unnecessary insult to the host country and is just plain bad form all 'round. Shows us as a country that 'muddles through'. Not good.
No sensible national government sends diplomats to a foreign-language country without proper language training. To send untrained staff (and it doesn't matter which Canadian government does it) cripples their efforts on our behalf, is an unnecessary insult to the host country and is just plain bad form all 'round. Shows us as a country that 'muddles through'. Not good.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Mercenaries: the Only Effective Solution to the Somali Pirate Scourge
Keeping elements of the world's navys on-call to fight pirates is ludicrously expensive and an overkill approach that misses the heart of the matter. Rather than trying to cover hundreds of thousands of square miles of open ocean, this is a real business opportunity for mercenaries (read 'private security organizations like Blackwater').
Mercenary teams, armed to the teeth (including nicely-sized bangers like shoulder-launched missiles in addition to their 'regular' armament) can be dropped onto cargo ship decks by helicopter to defend the ships as they enter the problem area. Then, 1-3 days later when the cargo ships have passed out of harm's way, the mercenaries are removed by helicopter and taken to their next cargo ship assignment. Simple. Cost-effective. And a great gig for contract tough-guys - maybe the ones getting a little long-in-the-tooth and want to survive their careers to be with families they care for back home.
If mercenary teams established by the likes of Blackwater are good enough to 'supplement' the US Army in Baghdad and elsewhere, they'd be the perfect force to warn away or fight off pirate aggression in the gulf. And having mercenaries riding shotgun temporarily focuses the resources where & when they're needed. No need then to arm the freighters or expect innocent crew members to periodically become professional soldiers to save someone else's cargos and/or their own lives.
Mercenary teams, armed to the teeth (including nicely-sized bangers like shoulder-launched missiles in addition to their 'regular' armament) can be dropped onto cargo ship decks by helicopter to defend the ships as they enter the problem area. Then, 1-3 days later when the cargo ships have passed out of harm's way, the mercenaries are removed by helicopter and taken to their next cargo ship assignment. Simple. Cost-effective. And a great gig for contract tough-guys - maybe the ones getting a little long-in-the-tooth and want to survive their careers to be with families they care for back home.
If mercenary teams established by the likes of Blackwater are good enough to 'supplement' the US Army in Baghdad and elsewhere, they'd be the perfect force to warn away or fight off pirate aggression in the gulf. And having mercenaries riding shotgun temporarily focuses the resources where & when they're needed. No need then to arm the freighters or expect innocent crew members to periodically become professional soldiers to save someone else's cargos and/or their own lives.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Christian Right by its Frightening Real Name - Dominionism
Most people who do not belong to what is loosely described as 'the Christian Right' think of those folks who do belong as nice enough, regular churchgoers, bible-reading and upholding family and societal values. Fair enough. What most people don't know is what I would call the iron hand of rigid fundamentalist Christian theocracy inside the velvet glove of Christian fundamentalist practitioners - called Dominionists and their movement Dominionism (see Wikipedia).
The Christian Right holds perhaps one of the best-kept out-in-the-open secrets and sponsors a relentless movement toward establishing (or re-establishing, in their minds) America (and Canada too, thanks to Mr. Harper and his religious-political allies) a religion-based government with all the hallmarks of an intolerant, fundamentalist, even fascist society, based on their interpretation of the bible and all the re-written history one could imagine. These people are deadly serious and constitute perhaps the single biggest threat to democracy as we know it, because, oddly enough, they lack the most obvious differentiators of other groups that constitute threats of various types to our society. Further, they are keenly aware of the need to operate 'under the radar' and ordinary people have not yet identified them widely as a threat.
Most recently that really wacky fringe organization - Westboro Baptist Church, from Topeka Kansas - has grabbed headlines again with its announced plans to cross the border into Canada and establish pickets at a high-school drama production of a play about a murdered gay guy. Most everyone thinks these folks are overstepping, beyond the pale, out of line - or whatever other ways you'd describe it. But you can bet your ticket to heaven that right-wing Christians are right there with 'em, seeing the Westboro folks as the front line, the strike force, the shock troops, the forefront of the battle line, carrying the banner forward. "Onward Westboro soldiers!" they'd cheer.
The population at large needs to understand the stark differences between nice people who believe in God and attend church regularly, and these frightening fundamentalists who yearn for the return of Jesus and the end of civilization ('Revelations') as we know it - those who look at unbelievers smugly & unsympathetically while waiting patiently to be 'raptured up' to their eternal reward, watching the sinners and the uncoverted die in the horrible torment of the end of the world.
The Christian Right holds perhaps one of the best-kept out-in-the-open secrets and sponsors a relentless movement toward establishing (or re-establishing, in their minds) America (and Canada too, thanks to Mr. Harper and his religious-political allies) a religion-based government with all the hallmarks of an intolerant, fundamentalist, even fascist society, based on their interpretation of the bible and all the re-written history one could imagine. These people are deadly serious and constitute perhaps the single biggest threat to democracy as we know it, because, oddly enough, they lack the most obvious differentiators of other groups that constitute threats of various types to our society. Further, they are keenly aware of the need to operate 'under the radar' and ordinary people have not yet identified them widely as a threat.
Most recently that really wacky fringe organization - Westboro Baptist Church, from Topeka Kansas - has grabbed headlines again with its announced plans to cross the border into Canada and establish pickets at a high-school drama production of a play about a murdered gay guy. Most everyone thinks these folks are overstepping, beyond the pale, out of line - or whatever other ways you'd describe it. But you can bet your ticket to heaven that right-wing Christians are right there with 'em, seeing the Westboro folks as the front line, the strike force, the shock troops, the forefront of the battle line, carrying the banner forward. "Onward Westboro soldiers!" they'd cheer.
The population at large needs to understand the stark differences between nice people who believe in God and attend church regularly, and these frightening fundamentalists who yearn for the return of Jesus and the end of civilization ('Revelations') as we know it - those who look at unbelievers smugly & unsympathetically while waiting patiently to be 'raptured up' to their eternal reward, watching the sinners and the uncoverted die in the horrible torment of the end of the world.
We must always remember the Conservative party leadership (intolerant right-wing Christian fundamentalists, make no mistake) wants all moms to stay at home to raise their kids; thinks home-schooling is a good idea because public schools are hotbeds of socialist thought; that didn't fund the scientists doing stem-cell research - remember that in the stimulus a few weeks ago? The same government whose members have 'an informal discussion group' determining if the time is right to bring up repeal of abortion rights; who think the earth is 6000-odd years old as calculated from bible stories?
This Harper government is determined to implement its agenda to steer Canada to becoming an intolerant right-wing Christian fundamentalist regime - watch for it - and find out more about Dominionism soon.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Paper Lids for Paper Cups - The Impossible Dream...
OK - we all agree on this, right? - that everything we humans produce but don't actually consume needs to be compostable and returned to the environment, or recyclable for reuse many times over. And general use of anything non-compostable needs to be reduced or eliminated.
The recent kefuffle about non-recyclable coffee-cup lids in Toronto drives me nuts. For the city to not have a comprehensive recycling capability seems stupid - there is still a long list of stuff we still can't put into the blue bin - and needs to be improved asap. The flip side argument - about having to use plastic lids on coffee cups because paper-product lids don't exist and are impossible to make strikes me as totally ludicrous, along the lines of 'may as well try to fly to the moon' or 'why would I use a telephone when there are so many messenger boys about?' Don't the people involved know how silly they sound citing use of paper lids as 'impossible'?
So, why aren't forest-products companies all over this one - creating a snug-fitting cardboard lid to go on top of a paper coffee cup. The cups are robust enough to hold the hot liquid indefinitely (well, until it gets really cold and eventually leaks onto one's desk) and the rolled rim really is pretty strong - couldn't a lid that incorporates some kind of rolled-edge strength do the job? There's gotta be a way, and I figure some smart kid coming out of university will solve this one and put the issue to rest. I can't wait! And just this week came the news that a Seattle-based company has indeed been producing just such a fine product for the US Navy - go figure, problem solved already, maybe. Now that's yankee ingenuity at work - how un-Canadian eh?
But speaking of solvable problems, how about the epidemic use of non-recyclable styrofoam fast-food containers, cups and generally speaking the plethora of non-recyclable plastic containers? Remember when take-out food or grocery & produce came in paper cartons, wrapped in newsprint or on heavier formed-paper trays? They worked fine except if one was packing something really sloppy, in which case the container was lined with a piece of waxed paper. Paper-based containers worked fine then but are largely superseded now by plastics of several varieties. Don't get me started on kids' toy containers or other egregious deployments of big, hard, impenetrable plastic packaging!
That's gotta stop. Bad enough the raw material for plastic is non-renewable petroleum products. Especially worse if they're non-recyclable. Use of petroleum-based materials must be changed out for renewable paper-based where possible. Again, you'd think forest-products folks would be all over this and I am guessing they are already. Problem is if the petroleum-based products are cheaper or the industry lobby is more effective not much will change.
So - what to do? Call me a 'big-government' guy for suggesting a tax-based solution - more taxes on the production and use of products that need to be discouraged, tax incentives for production and products that need to be encouraged. Could even make it almost balanced - 10 cent tax on a styrofoam container, 8 cent reduction on a paper container (inefficient gov't would probably keep 2 cents for admin). Makes the same food 18 cents cheaper served in paper. Simple eh? Truth is, people will not respond en masse except when they see the difference in the their wallets. Just like so many other things....that's life.
The recent kefuffle about non-recyclable coffee-cup lids in Toronto drives me nuts. For the city to not have a comprehensive recycling capability seems stupid - there is still a long list of stuff we still can't put into the blue bin - and needs to be improved asap. The flip side argument - about having to use plastic lids on coffee cups because paper-product lids don't exist and are impossible to make strikes me as totally ludicrous, along the lines of 'may as well try to fly to the moon' or 'why would I use a telephone when there are so many messenger boys about?' Don't the people involved know how silly they sound citing use of paper lids as 'impossible'?
So, why aren't forest-products companies all over this one - creating a snug-fitting cardboard lid to go on top of a paper coffee cup. The cups are robust enough to hold the hot liquid indefinitely (well, until it gets really cold and eventually leaks onto one's desk) and the rolled rim really is pretty strong - couldn't a lid that incorporates some kind of rolled-edge strength do the job? There's gotta be a way, and I figure some smart kid coming out of university will solve this one and put the issue to rest. I can't wait! And just this week came the news that a Seattle-based company has indeed been producing just such a fine product for the US Navy - go figure, problem solved already, maybe. Now that's yankee ingenuity at work - how un-Canadian eh?
But speaking of solvable problems, how about the epidemic use of non-recyclable styrofoam fast-food containers, cups and generally speaking the plethora of non-recyclable plastic containers? Remember when take-out food or grocery & produce came in paper cartons, wrapped in newsprint or on heavier formed-paper trays? They worked fine except if one was packing something really sloppy, in which case the container was lined with a piece of waxed paper. Paper-based containers worked fine then but are largely superseded now by plastics of several varieties. Don't get me started on kids' toy containers or other egregious deployments of big, hard, impenetrable plastic packaging!
That's gotta stop. Bad enough the raw material for plastic is non-renewable petroleum products. Especially worse if they're non-recyclable. Use of petroleum-based materials must be changed out for renewable paper-based where possible. Again, you'd think forest-products folks would be all over this and I am guessing they are already. Problem is if the petroleum-based products are cheaper or the industry lobby is more effective not much will change.
So - what to do? Call me a 'big-government' guy for suggesting a tax-based solution - more taxes on the production and use of products that need to be discouraged, tax incentives for production and products that need to be encouraged. Could even make it almost balanced - 10 cent tax on a styrofoam container, 8 cent reduction on a paper container (inefficient gov't would probably keep 2 cents for admin). Makes the same food 18 cents cheaper served in paper. Simple eh? Truth is, people will not respond en masse except when they see the difference in the their wallets. Just like so many other things....that's life.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Low Interest Rates Do Not Mean Easy Money
I was listening to my wake-up radio station this morning, catching the 6:30a.m. news as usual and waiting for the business commentator who follows the sports. Now, I'm sure this guy is well-received in some circles - I mean, the radio station must pay him, right? - but to me his comments are almost always some voodoo interpretation of some tidbit he's spotted in The Globe & Mail prior to going on air.
Today was no exception, when he talked about Bank of Canada's 0.75% interest rate reduction benefiting some people (variable-rate mortgage holders and line-of-credit users for example) but he was pretty certain the central bank erred because in his opinion there is now a big risk of re-creating another credit bubble right before our eyes 'by lending lots of low-cost money to people who don't qualify for loans and can't pay them back' i.e. sub-prime mortgages or similar. What a dope. It doesn't matter a whit how low rates are if no one is lending and if no one can afford to borrow. I couldn't take it any more - grabbed my cell phone from beside the bed and called the station's talkback line with the dual objective of setting him straight and venting a little too.
The fact is, regardless of interest rates set by the central bank, or more relevant - by the big banks at the retail level - the banks simply aren't lending to anybody unless there are existing commitments or platinum-plated collaterals, and even then maybe not. Why? Well, one good reason is the banks' priority is to shore up their capital bases - i.e. conserving cash - which means i) not lending at all, or ii) demanding much higher levels of collateral from customers, or iii) by demanding much higher interest rates from customers, or iv) all the above.
One personal experience from last week is related to my Mom's move to a retirement condo. Mom is moving to a retirement-specific condo building. In order to finance the move in a convenient manner, Mom has lots of assets but asked her bank to loan her $60,000 for 90 days, with her $127,000 GIC they were holding (not her only assets at that bank) as collateral.
The first anomaly was, the request had to be forwarded to head office. Then - more than two days later - the loan was denied flat - for no quoted reason. The capper came when my brother, acting for my Mom, asked the bank to then liquidate the GIC so she could complete the condo transaction and the personal banking manager said to the effect of 'No, you can't liquidate your GIC' even though it is clearly redeemable any time. All of our jaws dropped simultaneously. To make the rest of the story short, my brother, a lawyer, invited the banker to discuss the legality of denying my Mom access to her deposited assets. The banker caved and cashed the GIC. We are still flabbergasted at the actions of that bank.
I really believe the bank's actions in this matter, when extrapolated to a Canada-wide bank-wide context - send the message that it is absolutely focused on preserving its capital, not lending to anyone unless they truly have to, and making sure none of their branch officers make lending decisions that erode their capital positions. No kidding - their investment arm clearly screwed up so big on sub-prime & ABCPs they have to do something to remain on a even keel.
The next case is a well-heeled professional friend whose business-only line-of-credit was coming up for annual renewal. His business is solid as a rock, and growing, and has substantial deposits at his bank, at least three times the amount of the line-of-credit, which he has never drawn against. This time around on the annual renewal, the bank asked him for all his personal statements, including his wife's, and an inventory of everything they have invested, before the bank would consider renewing the business line-of-credit. My friend is pissed off and the bank is adamant. In times of easy credit that would be deemed idiotic and totally unnecessary. In these times of the credit-crunch, it's business as usual.
Of course, when the central bank dropped interest rates by 0.75%, everyone expects the chartered banks to do the same, right? Wrong, and for the second time this year. The banks are absolutely intent on improving their overall loan performance and the way to do that is to levy higher interest charges wherever possible. So when the central bank drops the rate 0.75%, customers simply do not get the whole benefits.
The newspapers are full of reports where banks wouldn't lend (the BCE buyout is such a classic example) to their ultimate relief. Their capital bases are all-important these days.
One of the major objectives - even demands - of central bakers when forwarding billions of bailout dollars is that banks must make loans available, hence keeping the economy moving. The banks' actions couldn't be further from meeting those demands. Truth is, the banks are seizing up the credit markets in a selfish and vain attempt to forestall their own troubles and in the process are paving the road to economic hell for us all.
Don't believe me? Go apply for a loan. Good luck - let me know how it goes.
Today was no exception, when he talked about Bank of Canada's 0.75% interest rate reduction benefiting some people (variable-rate mortgage holders and line-of-credit users for example) but he was pretty certain the central bank erred because in his opinion there is now a big risk of re-creating another credit bubble right before our eyes 'by lending lots of low-cost money to people who don't qualify for loans and can't pay them back' i.e. sub-prime mortgages or similar. What a dope. It doesn't matter a whit how low rates are if no one is lending and if no one can afford to borrow. I couldn't take it any more - grabbed my cell phone from beside the bed and called the station's talkback line with the dual objective of setting him straight and venting a little too.
The fact is, regardless of interest rates set by the central bank, or more relevant - by the big banks at the retail level - the banks simply aren't lending to anybody unless there are existing commitments or platinum-plated collaterals, and even then maybe not. Why? Well, one good reason is the banks' priority is to shore up their capital bases - i.e. conserving cash - which means i) not lending at all, or ii) demanding much higher levels of collateral from customers, or iii) by demanding much higher interest rates from customers, or iv) all the above.
One personal experience from last week is related to my Mom's move to a retirement condo. Mom is moving to a retirement-specific condo building. In order to finance the move in a convenient manner, Mom has lots of assets but asked her bank to loan her $60,000 for 90 days, with her $127,000 GIC they were holding (not her only assets at that bank) as collateral.
The first anomaly was, the request had to be forwarded to head office. Then - more than two days later - the loan was denied flat - for no quoted reason. The capper came when my brother, acting for my Mom, asked the bank to then liquidate the GIC so she could complete the condo transaction and the personal banking manager said to the effect of 'No, you can't liquidate your GIC' even though it is clearly redeemable any time. All of our jaws dropped simultaneously. To make the rest of the story short, my brother, a lawyer, invited the banker to discuss the legality of denying my Mom access to her deposited assets. The banker caved and cashed the GIC. We are still flabbergasted at the actions of that bank.
I really believe the bank's actions in this matter, when extrapolated to a Canada-wide bank-wide context - send the message that it is absolutely focused on preserving its capital, not lending to anyone unless they truly have to, and making sure none of their branch officers make lending decisions that erode their capital positions. No kidding - their investment arm clearly screwed up so big on sub-prime & ABCPs they have to do something to remain on a even keel.
The next case is a well-heeled professional friend whose business-only line-of-credit was coming up for annual renewal. His business is solid as a rock, and growing, and has substantial deposits at his bank, at least three times the amount of the line-of-credit, which he has never drawn against. This time around on the annual renewal, the bank asked him for all his personal statements, including his wife's, and an inventory of everything they have invested, before the bank would consider renewing the business line-of-credit. My friend is pissed off and the bank is adamant. In times of easy credit that would be deemed idiotic and totally unnecessary. In these times of the credit-crunch, it's business as usual.
Of course, when the central bank dropped interest rates by 0.75%, everyone expects the chartered banks to do the same, right? Wrong, and for the second time this year. The banks are absolutely intent on improving their overall loan performance and the way to do that is to levy higher interest charges wherever possible. So when the central bank drops the rate 0.75%, customers simply do not get the whole benefits.
The newspapers are full of reports where banks wouldn't lend (the BCE buyout is such a classic example) to their ultimate relief. Their capital bases are all-important these days.
One of the major objectives - even demands - of central bakers when forwarding billions of bailout dollars is that banks must make loans available, hence keeping the economy moving. The banks' actions couldn't be further from meeting those demands. Truth is, the banks are seizing up the credit markets in a selfish and vain attempt to forestall their own troubles and in the process are paving the road to economic hell for us all.
Don't believe me? Go apply for a loan. Good luck - let me know how it goes.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Young Terrorists Execute Plan for Slaughter - Almost...
Last week's horrible slaughter of innocents in Mumbai at the hands of a band of well-armed & trained youths is yet another wake-up call to the security chiefs of the world's democracies.
The characteristics of the assault are eerily echoed in a story Canadians heard earlier this year: 10-20 young men, all teens & early twenties, burning with a religious zeal learned in the terrorist camps of Afghanistan, training with weapons & tactics in a remote outdoor setting, focused on mass murder and destruction in the name of jihad, targeting the seat of government and other high-profile etablishments, capping their actions with the particularly gruesome objective of decapitating a prime minister.
This is an analogue of the story of the erstwhile Brampton 17 - described by Canadian authorities as dangerous terrorists-in-training and brought to trial on related charges. Interestingly, their defence is largely founded on the premise that they are just boys, goofing around, pretending to be bigger than they could possibly achieve, harmless in a kind of mis-guided boy scout troop way. Their juvenile conversations were pointed out as examples of just how innocent the boys were. My guess is, if we had taped 'down-time' conversations of the Mumbai attackers they'd be just the same - a smattering of boy-talk, boasting of prowess, complaining about food, joking about another's girlfriend, scraps of religious fundamentalist leanings and even confessions of self-doubt and backsliding. These are, after all young men in their teens & twenties - what would we expect them to talk about?
Whatever the fate of the Brampton 17, in the context of the slaughter at Mumbai, it may be a big mistake for peace-loving, complacent, forgiving Canadians to gently chide the judiciary into giving the Brampton boys an easy out. Besides, just because the Crown cannot always get a conviction or even get charges to stick, does not mean there is no cause for alarm and continued vigilance in this country, indeed around the world.
The characteristics of the assault are eerily echoed in a story Canadians heard earlier this year: 10-20 young men, all teens & early twenties, burning with a religious zeal learned in the terrorist camps of Afghanistan, training with weapons & tactics in a remote outdoor setting, focused on mass murder and destruction in the name of jihad, targeting the seat of government and other high-profile etablishments, capping their actions with the particularly gruesome objective of decapitating a prime minister.
This is an analogue of the story of the erstwhile Brampton 17 - described by Canadian authorities as dangerous terrorists-in-training and brought to trial on related charges. Interestingly, their defence is largely founded on the premise that they are just boys, goofing around, pretending to be bigger than they could possibly achieve, harmless in a kind of mis-guided boy scout troop way. Their juvenile conversations were pointed out as examples of just how innocent the boys were. My guess is, if we had taped 'down-time' conversations of the Mumbai attackers they'd be just the same - a smattering of boy-talk, boasting of prowess, complaining about food, joking about another's girlfriend, scraps of religious fundamentalist leanings and even confessions of self-doubt and backsliding. These are, after all young men in their teens & twenties - what would we expect them to talk about?
Whatever the fate of the Brampton 17, in the context of the slaughter at Mumbai, it may be a big mistake for peace-loving, complacent, forgiving Canadians to gently chide the judiciary into giving the Brampton boys an easy out. Besides, just because the Crown cannot always get a conviction or even get charges to stick, does not mean there is no cause for alarm and continued vigilance in this country, indeed around the world.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Never Let Truth or Common-Sense Get in the Way of a Good Story
I'm no medical expert but common-sense tells you the stories about re-use of syringes in western Canadian healthcare institutions are very overblown and in all the press I've seen, only one complete explanation was made about what is really at (non-)issue:
1. The syringes are re-used ONLY injecting into IV tubes - NEVER into patients directly.
2. The NEEDLES are NEVER re-used - only the syringe bodies.
It would be a rare and huge malfunction of the whole IV setup that would propel a patient's blood backwards up the IV tube to the injection point, creating the potental for spreading of any blood-borne disease or infection, that would also have to travel up a (NEVER re-used) needle point, into a syringe, and be ignored by an idiot attendant. Possible? - yes. Likelihood? - miniscule, like never.
Anyone with common sense can see this practice would likely never cause a problem - there are no reports of this practice causing any problem - ANYWHERE.This is a tempest in a teapot and needs to simply go away. Perhaps a provincial or federal minister of health will have the good sense to speak to the people, give all the details, tell the whole truth and dispose of this non-scandalous non-story before it gets any larger.
Furthermore, it would be very interesting to learn the source of this story - who decided to make a name for themselves or who wanted a 'scoop' by breaking a big healthcare scandal story.
Healthcare has enough problems without having to fight its way through stupid media coverage like this.
1. The syringes are re-used ONLY injecting into IV tubes - NEVER into patients directly.
2. The NEEDLES are NEVER re-used - only the syringe bodies.
It would be a rare and huge malfunction of the whole IV setup that would propel a patient's blood backwards up the IV tube to the injection point, creating the potental for spreading of any blood-borne disease or infection, that would also have to travel up a (NEVER re-used) needle point, into a syringe, and be ignored by an idiot attendant. Possible? - yes. Likelihood? - miniscule, like never.
Anyone with common sense can see this practice would likely never cause a problem - there are no reports of this practice causing any problem - ANYWHERE.This is a tempest in a teapot and needs to simply go away. Perhaps a provincial or federal minister of health will have the good sense to speak to the people, give all the details, tell the whole truth and dispose of this non-scandalous non-story before it gets any larger.
Furthermore, it would be very interesting to learn the source of this story - who decided to make a name for themselves or who wanted a 'scoop' by breaking a big healthcare scandal story.
Healthcare has enough problems without having to fight its way through stupid media coverage like this.
Experts Blame 'Lack of Confidence' for Market Turmoils: "No Shit, Sherlock..."
My point today is about confidence - so many folks will take all the financial pros' statements bemoaning a lack of confidence everywhere as righteous chastisement for liquidating their meager assets in an effort to save something! However, given what we know, and worse - what no one knows about where is the real bottom - isn't a lack of confidence perfectly correct and even smart? What else is recommended by these highly-placed touts? Where is their own money? If they're getting laid as low as many citizens, they have no right to be on their soapboxes at all. In the end,
Mark-to-Market will have its inevitable day, and sooner is better.
Mark-to-Market will have its inevitable day, and sooner is better.
It's Hard to Blame Handguns for Problems People Create
The Handgun Problem. Lots of folks talk about ways to reduce or eliminate gun-crime. I agree - control of Handguns is important - after all, Handguns are made specifically to kill people. That's it, that's all - kill people.
So, Step One - let's make sure Handguns are all registered, stored safely, owners rigorously licensed, old ones in the basement are turned in and so on.
Now for Step Two - let's control the people who can't control their use of Handguns. Specifically, with hard & fast irrevocable jail terms - hard time, no parole - for people who have 'em and/or use 'em, just like this:
i) unlawful possession of any Handgun, loaded or unloaded, registered or unregistered - 5 Years;
ii) discharge of any Handgun anywhere except a licensed range - 10 years;
iii) use of a Handgun in commission of any crime - 15 Years;
iv) discharge of a Handgun during commission of any crime - 20 Years;
v) any wounding or killing with a Handgun - 25 Years.
Surely after a few thugs go away for what amounts to a lifetime, even their most cretinous buddies will understand that use of Handguns does not intersect with their own best interests.
That's my 5-25 Plan.
So, Step One - let's make sure Handguns are all registered, stored safely, owners rigorously licensed, old ones in the basement are turned in and so on.
Now for Step Two - let's control the people who can't control their use of Handguns. Specifically, with hard & fast irrevocable jail terms - hard time, no parole - for people who have 'em and/or use 'em, just like this:
i) unlawful possession of any Handgun, loaded or unloaded, registered or unregistered - 5 Years;
ii) discharge of any Handgun anywhere except a licensed range - 10 years;
iii) use of a Handgun in commission of any crime - 15 Years;
iv) discharge of a Handgun during commission of any crime - 20 Years;
v) any wounding or killing with a Handgun - 25 Years.
Surely after a few thugs go away for what amounts to a lifetime, even their most cretinous buddies will understand that use of Handguns does not intersect with their own best interests.
That's my 5-25 Plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
