ARE YOU HAVING SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT GRETA?

ARE YOU HAVING SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT GRETA?

I don’t know about you, but I am having some second thoughts about seventeen-year-old Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg. Thunberg is known for her straightforward speaking manner, both in public and to political leaders and assemblies, in which she urges immediate action to address what she describes as the climate crisis. I support the message that she is constantly delivering, but I am more amazed by her global impact on the issue.

There has been much criticism, including by myself, as to whether she is actually a genuine, knowledgeable young girl or is she being manipulated by other forces and movements. I don’t know the answer, but as a teenager, she is actually quite amazing. Greta has been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism, alongside ADHD. I would maintain that these disorders are an incredible handicap for even the strongest adult to overcome. Yet, in spite of it, Greta possesses an incredible presence when she speaks. When she speaks she has the charisma of a movie star or an elite athlete although she is really a teenage school girl.

Her United Nations address last year not only captured the attention of the delegates but that of millions of people around the world with her biting rebuke of the establishment. “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!” That is a very powerful narrative delivered with a feistiness and verve that is usually reserved for senior statesmen or veteran leaders.

I believe that presentation at the UN caused a lot of leaders to pay attention and sit up straight and lower their eyes. They, and we, all knew that there was more truth to her message than we cared to admit. But of course, she was just a relatively unknown child with no academic credentials, so the establishment had nothing to worry about. Her dramatic performance would be forgotten tomorrow. Well, we were wrong again.

Whatever criticism people throw at her - her youth, her naivety, her lack of academic credentials, her family influence, or her lack of understanding of all of the ramifications and facets of climate change - she is now a powerful voice in the world. She seems to touch the core values of a lot of people who are also tired of the counter-arguments of the big business and oil sectors who ridicule and dispel her as an uninformed minor.

She was chosen as the Time magazine Person of the Year for 2019 and nominated for the Nobel Prize as well. Whether you believe that this is far too much of a leap of faith to elevate her to the level of many famous world leaders, she is there. Her name is recognized globally and it arouses strong sentiment from supporters on both sides of the climate change issue. Rallies and demonstrations in support of her climate change fight have numbered in the hundreds of thousands with cumulative totals over five million. Her ability to arouse fervour and impassioned responses from her audiences is a quality few leaders possess. Greta Thunberg has that ability!

It is too early to determine whether she will continue to gain momentum and support in her crusade. Will history elevate her impact to the level of the amateur German painter from Munich or the American pastor from Atlanta who had a dream? Or will the Thunberg movement suffer the same fate as the Occupy Wall Street one, and rise rapidly and then fade as quickly as a colour photo left too long in the sunshine? Time will be the judge.

All I know for sure is that Greta Thunberg will not be going away anytime soon!

WHO CAN BUILD A HOSPITAL IN SIX DAYS?

WHO CAN BUILD A HOSPITAL IN SIX DAYS?

I just read a ridiculous story today that stated, “The Chinese city of Wuhan is set to build a hospital in six days in order to treat patients suspected of contracting the coronavirus.” Of course, we all know that is just Chinese propaganda and it is impossible to accomplish something this massive in that short a time frame. Then I read further. In fact, a hospital was built in Beijing to help tackle the Sars virus in 2003, but it took them seven days! Yikes, how is that even possible?

Both hospitals are or will be made out of prefabricated building materials. Hospitals in Wuhan have been flooded with concerned residents and pharmacies are running out of medicine with the outbreak of the coronavirus. According to state media, the new hospital will contain about 1,000 beds. It's basically a quarantined hospital where they send people with infectious diseases so it has the safety and protective gear in place. Inside, it will have an X-ray room, CT room, intensive-care unit, and laboratory. Each ward will be equipped with its own bathrooms. And it will be operating in less than a week's time!

I guess I shouldn’t have been so skeptical when you read about some of China’s other major engineering feats. For example, consider the Beijing subway system. The Beijing Subway opened in 1969 and is the oldest metro system in mainland China. Before 2002, the subway consisted of only two lines. Then China was awarded the 2008 Summer Olympics and the Chinese kicked subway construction into high gear. In six years, Beijing built three new subway lines for a total of five in 2008. Today it boasts 23 subway lines - an increase of 18 lines in the past eleven years. So why can’t they build a measly hospital in six days?

Further evidence of Chinese engineering prowess and “Get-er-done” mentality is on display when you examine the bullet train system. With the longest high-speed rail network in the world, China has achieved the goal of the Four Vertical and Four Horizontal High-Speed Networks by the end of 2017. They will soon complete a national grid of high-speed railways with eight north-south routes and eight east-west routes that will crisscross all of China with bullet trains that travel at 250-350 km/hour. So why can’t they build a measly hospital in six days?

This high-speed rail miracle that has been built in China caused me to reflect on the potentially magnificent rapid rail line that may be built between Calgary and Edmonton. This massive 300 km challenge ( the Chinese rapid rail network spans 35,000 km) has been a topic of speculation for over fifty years. A formal Alberta government study first examined the prospects for high-speed rail in 1985. Five more studies have followed in 2004, 2008, 2010, 2014, and 2019, with the latest proposal currently sitting in bureaucratic government limbo. Thirty-four years to discuss, debate, examine and consult, and the quickest way to get to Edmonton from Calgary is still a three-hour drive by car!

If someone should ask you if the Alberta government can build a hospital in six days, I think you know the answer?

WILL PRINCE HARRY’S “ABDICATION” WORK?

WILL PRINCE HARRY’S “ABDICATION” WORK?

Many commoners, I am sure, have at some time reflected on how nice it would be to be a king or queen, a prince or princess. It is a fantasy that we have been raised with as children, in fairy tales featuring a beautiful princess and her Prince Charming. Well apparently, being a member of royalty is not all that it is cracked up to be. Recently, Prince Harry and his wife Meghan were granted their wish to “step back” from royal duties.

Beginning in the spring of 2020, the couple will be allowed the freedom they covet — freedom from the mandatory pinning on of fancy hats and medals for state events, freedom from required royal overseas tours, freedom from the constraint that they live in gilded but gated palaces in the UK. But this freedom has a high price. Under an agreement with the Queen, the couple will be barred from cashing in on their titles, and can no longer call themselves “His Royal Highness” and “Her Royal Highness.” For some, this is a progressive move and for others, it is a tragedy. Although Prince Harry is currently seventh in line to assume the throne of England, that possibility is very remote.

I would surmise, that in a sense, Harry has abdicated his option to ever be King. Edward VIII becomes the first English monarch to voluntarily abdicate the throne after ruling for less than one year,. He chose to abdicate after the British government, public, and the Church of England condemned his decision to marry the American divorcée Wallis Warfield Simpson. Harry’s decision is kind of similar and was a shock to royal-watchers and to his own family

At least 36 royals have abdicated in modern times (1900 through today), including the latest, King Carlos of Spain in 2014. These three dozen or so abdications include 20 traditional abdications where another (usually a family member) is brought in to rule, eight monarchy abolishments (such as Emperor Nicholas II of Russia in 1917), seven times where the ruler was forced into exile (such as Egypt’s King Farouk in 1952), and once when the country ceded into an already-existing monarchy (Charles Vyner Brooke, the White Rajah of Sarawak, when the Malaysian nation became a British Crown colony in 1946). How’s that for a nugget of trivia that you can unleash the next time you are a contestant on Jeopardy?

For your further edification, here are 44 sovereign monarchies worldwide. Of these, six are absolute (Saudi Arabia and Vatican City are examples), 36 are constitutional monarchies and two — Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates — have a mixed constitutional/absolute form of government. More than a dozen of the 44 monarchies have Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch, including Canada, and the other Commonwealth countries.

It will be interesting to see how Harry’s “abdication” will unfold. While he and his wife are seeking a more private and less formal way of life, I am not sure that they will ever escape the scrutiny of the obsessive public media. They are still royal personalities and I doubt whether they could ever live normally in a nice house in Edgemont, shop anonymously at Market Mall or take Archie Halloweening casually on their own street.

Today’s mass media are ruthless and their paparazzi mentality will not be diverted by the wishes of Harry and Meghan. I’m not sure that they might not have achieved their objective by just slowly removing themselves from the public spotlight over a few years. I think their dramatic decision makes them even more attractive media targets than would have been the case by them just slowly and discreetly fading into the sunset. What do you think?

ARE THE LAWYERS PETTIFOGGING FOR THE BUFF OON?

ARE THE LAWYERS PETTIFOGGING FOR THE BUFF OON?

On the first day of the Trump impeachment trial, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts uttered the word "pettifogging" to illustrate a point. I am usually quite fascinated when a new word pops up unexpectedly in a book, an article, or in the media. I am not so sure that most people pay a lot of attention to strange new words or vocabulary. Many just ignore an uncommon word and carry on, without pause. I needed to find out what “pettifogging” was all about.

To "pettifog" is, according to the Webster dictionary, "to quibble over insignificant details" or "engage in legal chicanery”. The verb was actually formed from the noun "pettifogger", which was used in the 16th Century to describe those who would argue over minor details in a fee. Webster also notes that the term was often used to describe "lower-status lawyers" who would take on small cases. While a presidential impeachment is not a small case, I thought it did hit the nail on the head by attaching it to “lower-status” lawyers who engage in legal chicanery!

There is actually a book called Foyle’s Philavery: A Treasury of Unusual Words which is an idiosyncratic collection of uncommon and pleasing words. The word "philavery" itself was invented by Christopher Foyle, the chairman of the famous Foyle's Bookshop in London, who described his book as a collection of words chosen simply on the grounds of their aesthetic appeal. Some of the words appeal because of their aptness, some for their obscurity, some for their euphony, and some for their quirkiness.

A few examples from Foyle’s book include:
acrasial –  an adjective that describes something that is – at the same time: excessive, irregular, confused and disordered.
limocolous – an adjective used to describe anything which has mud as its primary component.
novenary – an adjective that describes anything that has a strong connection with or derives from the number nine.
turdiform –  an adjective that describes any creature that has a form that resembles that of a thrush (genus Turdus).

And the best way to learn and acquire new vocabulary is to incorporate the words into a sentence. Thus, “I recently observed a novenary group of turdiform birds randomly flitting acrasially around a limocolous nest.” My faithful readers will now not be surprised when my new vocabulary occasionally pops up in future blogs.

When I was a teacher one of my favourite obscure words was culled from the poem,” The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.” The word was “eftsoons” and it translates to once again, soon after or presently. I used to dramatically call out to the class, “Eftsoons, it is time to extract your literature book!” The kids were soon tossing the word about like a paper wad and proclaiming, “Eftsoons, I think it is time for the bell to ring,” or “ Efstoons, may I leave the room please.” A new word can be a lot of fun!

The other rather archaic word that comes to mind when I hear about the impeachment trial is “buffoon”, defined as a ridiculous but amusing person; a clown. I don’t know why it surfaces so quickly in relation to impeachment but it does. Can anyone venture a guess?

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ACUTE FLACCID MYELITIS?

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ACUTE FLACCID MYELITIS?

Just when I thought I was going to get ahead of the game, the game got ahead of me. I wrote the blog below earlier in 2019 regarding the latest new virus - Acute Flaccid Myelitis. Before I could post it, I was introduced this week to the latest star of the virus family, the Coronavirus, and it has nothing to do with the overconsumption of the local Mexican beer. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that cause illness ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as pneumonia and can cause severe acute respiratory distress, kidney failure, and even death. We are now faced with yet another deadly virus that is new and becoming a major health threat!

———————————————-
 
The race to the finish is well underway. Another, previously little known virus has reared its ugly head - the Acute Flaccid Myelitis virus.  It seems that a new and deadly disease or virus makes an appearance every couple of years. This year I have been made aware of Acute Flaccid Myelitis. This rare but serious disease affects the nervous system, causing muscles and reflexes to suddenly become weak. Experts haven’t found a cause and can’t explain why the illness recently has proliferated.

Over the past thirty to forty years we have been threatened by numerous new diseases that I had never heard of before. A couple of years ago a Zika virus infection contracted during pregnancy caused some infants to be born with microcephaly and other congenital malformations.

Ebola virus disease (EVD), is another severe, often fatal illness in humans that was first discovered in 1976. The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission. The average EVD case fatality rate is around 50%. Thousands of Africans have died from the disease and is currently rearing its ugly head again in the Congo.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) discovered in China in 2003 has spread to other parts of the world and there is no cure or preventative vaccine. The viruses of the world appear to be gaining an upper hand over their human victims. In the past twenty years, we have had outbreaks of bird flu, the swine flu, Hantavirus and a veritable alphabet soup of H1N1 flus and all of its mutant brothers and sisters.

The Grand Daddy of all recent deadly virus-driven diseases has been AIDS. Recent data shows that there are over 30 MILLION people infected with AIDS and over a million more have died from the disease. The first case was reported in 1980.

All of the above diseases have only reared their heads in the past 40 years.  As the world’s population grows, with a projection of 11 billion by 2100, the number of new diseases can be expected to grow even more quickly. Often the majority of new population growth is in poorer countries where sanitation and healthy environments are often minimal, contributing to the evolution of new diseases. People travel more often to more places and thus there is more global opportunity to spread new viruses.

I feel the number and severity of so many new diseases is very alarming. The emergence of a new super virus seems to be occurring every two or three years. (Perhaps this should now read two or three months!) I am not sure where it will end but I do believe that ultimately the virus will be the last “man” standing, and when they look around, there will not be a Homo Sapien in sight!  Am I just being paranoid or a realist?
     

WOULD YOU RATHER DINE ON WESTJET OR EMIRATES AIR?

I've heard people dissing airline food a lot over the years. If you don't like your airline food, you're doing it wrong, or perhaps you're just flying to the wrong destination.

My preferred restaurant in the sky is in Emirates.

It starts with the champagne and a wine list to ponder (drool over). The menu is printed on a textured card and includes a welcome from the Chef. A smoked salmon starter with a slice of lemon and you know it's going to be classy when the lemon has gauze wrapped around it to stop the pesky lemon pips getting among the capers on the dish (btw, in this restaurant it's a dish, not a plate).

I like to have red meat, and there's usually a steak option. I believe this offsets the flight's carbon emissions. My favourite is a sirloin steak with mushroom sauce, char-grilled asparagus, mashed potato... The red wine will be from Central Otago (that's southern New Zealand) if possible. I think the char-grilled asparagus offsets the carbon too. It must be the crispy, burnty bits - they're carbon, aren't they?

Dessert poses hellish problems for me, my fingers trilling up and down the menu like it's a piano keyboard while I sing the words I can't remember, um, um, um, um..., but the fight attendant simplifies life. She offers to bring them all. OMG!! I say 'no, I'm on a diet, so I'll just have 3 desserts' and I go for the three-chocolate mousse, the mango cheesecake, and the passionfruit parfait. FYI, the one I left out, on account of the diet, was the calorie-laden fruit salad. You see, dieting is all about making healthy choices and feeling good about yourself.

And remember that they give the wine list first? Do your preparation. Scan all the options and you'll see a Taylor's 20-year-old tawny port and so it would be socially wrong not to ask for the cheeseboard to accompany a glass of port. And because stilton, dried figs, and port go together like, um, cheese and crackers. And it turns out that the flight attendant offers repeated refills of the port. OMG again and no this is all not a dream.

There's coffee of course, always served with Lindt truffle chocolates.

Did I mention the crisply ironed and starched linen table cloth and linen napkins? And the array of stainless steel cutlery and the stemmed glasses for the champagne, red wine, and port? Just like being at home. And later, Earl Grey tea with shortbread.

This is what Emirates served when I flew Business class from Dubai to Zagreb at the start of the last summer vacation.

Who says the romance of travel has died?

WHO SAYS THERE’S NO GOOD AIRLINE FOOD?

One of the regular laments of the airline traveler is the fact that the food on airlines is either mediocre or non-existent at all. The days of real cutlery and glass plates with assorted entree options and delicious desserts died decades ago. Today, the airline meals of yesteryear have been replaced by a gourmet choice of either pretzels or cookies. And on my last flight, I was informed I couldn’t have a full can of Diet Coke until all the passengers had been served. Excuse me for being a pig, but I thought that my fare of over $1000 for my return airline ticket provided some benefits. Well, our recent flight from Calgary to Mazatlan has erased all of those inconveniences as I was treated to the full-meal-deal!

Aside from a variety of snacks that I could purchase, we had the choice of four lunch entrees on our trip - a chicken wrap, mac and cheese, a ham and cheese croissant or a butter chicken dish. Not a great menu, but not that awful. I chose to dine on the ham and cheese croissant and had no complaints. After I was finished, I read the contents of the meal printed on the croissant box and was astounded by the fabulous meal that I had actually eaten.

The actual contents of my lunch were described thus:
INGREDIENTS: CROISSANT (enriched flour; wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid; water, margarine (partially hydrogenated soybean oil, lecithin, mono and diglycerides, potassium sorbate, citric acid, artificial flavour, beta carotene colour, vitamin A palmitate), high fructose corn syrup, contains less than 2% of the following: yeast, whey salt, vegetable shortening (partially hydrogenated soybean & cottonseed oils), wheat gluten, monoglycerides, sodium stearoyl lactylate, calcium proportionate, dextrin, natural flavour, ascorbic acid, azodicabonamide), BLACK FOREST HAM (pork, water, potassium lactate, dextrose, salt, potassium chloride, sodium phosphate, sodium diacetate, sodium ascorbate, smoke flavour, sodium nitrite, spices, caramel, smoke), ROASTED RED PEPPER SAUCE (mayonnaise, water, canola oil, modified corn & potato starch, liquid egg, sugar, salt, vinegar, concentrated lemon juice, sorbic acid, spices, natural colour, natural flavour, calcium disodium edta, dehydrogenated vegetables - red, green bell pepper, roasted garlic, onion, garlic, sugar, sodium acetate, spice, high oleic sunflower oil, acetic acid, disodium inosinate guanylate, ascorbic acid, flavour, calcium silicate, SWISS CHEESE - pasteurized  milk, salt, microbial enzyme and bacterial culture. CONTAINS egg, milk, soy, wheat.

It’s not hard to understand why I felt full from consuming all of the above natural ingredients and those approved by the Canadian Food Protection people! It was comforting to know that I was able to consume my daily ration of smoke and I don’t know about you, but I find it hard to actually get my daily requirement of disodium inosinate guanylate so I was really pleased. And it only cost $9.99 and I even got a full can of Diet Coke without any hassle. Life is good, isn’t it! And healthy eating only adds to the pleasure!

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE STEALING SIGNS SCANDAL?

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE STEALING SIGNS SCANDAL?

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. Scandals have regularly rocked the world of politics and the entertainment industry. Sooner or later it was bound to strike one of my favourite worlds - the world of baseball. In the recent past, the steroid controversy rocked baseball, when many hugely successful players like Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire were accused of using performance-enhancing drugs to develop more muscle mass and consequently hitting the baseball harder and farther than ever before. Steroid use is now being closely monitored, but now we have been hit by the “Stealing Signs” scandal! Say it ain’t so!

For non-baseball fans let me briefly explain what the scandal is all about. In a baseball game, the catcher uses his fingers to indicate to the pitcher what kind of pitch to throw. For example, if the catcher shows only one finger, out of view of the hitter, the pitcher throws a fastball. If the catcher shows two or three fingers to the pitcher it might indicate a curveball or a slower pitch. Baseball is a huge guessing game where the hitter tries to guess what kind of pitch the pitcher will throw so he has a better chance of hitting a fast, slow or curving pitch. At least that is the theory.

The disgraced Houston Astros team devised a scheme whereby a camera in centre field would film the catcher’s signs and then instantly transmit them to the dugout where the sign could be relayed to the hitter so that he might know what kind of pitch to expect. This dastardly crime was recently investigated and the Astros were found guilty of cheating, as in stealing signs - a baseball no-no.

Anyone who knows baseball well will explain how difficult it is to hit a round ball that is thrown from 90 to 100 miles an hour from only sixty feet away with a round bat. When the pitcher releases the pitch it takes less than half of a second to arrive at the home plate. Good hitters manage to make successful contact only three out of ten times at-bat. Enter the scandal.

My personal assessment is that it really much ado about nothing. Of course, this is a non-professional opinion based on logic and not experience. I simply can’t believe that getting a signal from the dugout that the next pitch is a curveball is really going to help the hitter. The total time for the camera to transmit the sign to the dugout, then to the hitter is less than a second. The hitter then has to process this information in a small fraction of a second and then adjust his swing and timing to hit a signaled curveball. I just don’t think that many players have that kind of reaction time or skill to really take advantage of the information in less than a second. But I repeat I am no expert.

Major league baseball however thinks much differently than I do. They have treated the episode as a major crime. The manager and the general manager of the Astros were suspended for a year, and subsequently fired by the team. The Astros were also fined $5 million and they have forfeited their first two draft picks in 2020 and 2021 (which is a fairly significant matter) in the annual draft of players. A former coach during the scandal, who was now a manager for the Boston Red Sox was also released by his team. This is a pretty serious repercussion.

I really don’t feel that the punishments fit the crime, if in effect “stealing signs” is really a crime! What do you think? And do you really care?

WILL TRUDEAU’S NEW BEARD MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

WILL TRUDEAU’S NEW BEARD MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

A recent caption on a news article read, “Justin Trudeau and the politics of facial hair.” Of course, as you have probably already guessed, my first question was, “What is the relationship between facial hair and politics?” Like myself, most people will surmise there is no relationship with beards and moustaches, and politics so I thought that I should launch my own personal investigation.

I began with my own story of facial hair. I was never blessed with abundant or attractive hair on my head or my face. In both regards, my hair genes provided me with thin, light brown, rather ordinary hair. On the July 1st weekend of 1973, I went on a men’s fishing trip with my brother, son, and nephew into the wilds of western Alberta. After I returned home, I decided that I would not shave for a while. Forty-six years later, I still have not shaved off my now thin, grey beard and have no intention of doing so.

I can confirm that my decision to grow (or try to grow) a beard had no political significance. The primary benefit to me was to allow me to only have to shave my neck hair every three or four days instead of my whole face every day. At about three minutes for a total shave, I have calculated that I have saved some 33 DAYS by not shaving and growing a beard. I couldn’t believe that I could save over a month of time by not shaving! What a bonus!

Apparently, however, politicians lead a much more glamorous life than I, so they routinely meet with image consultants to try to enhance their public persona. One such consultant commented on Trudeau’s new post-Christmas beard as, "There is a certain level of maturity that he's projecting with this beard, there's no doubt about it.” Let us just pray that her observation is correct. She also noted "He doesn't look so young with the beard. He certainly does look more of a seasoned statesman.” I don’t recall a lot of people making those same statesman remarks about me after I grew my beard. Perhaps they didn’t want to state the obvious!

I am not sure that facial hair is any criteria for a more successful political career. Two recent NDP leaders, Tomas Mulcair and Jagmeet Singh, were both bearded and unsuccessful in their race to the top. The last Canadian PM with facial hair (a moustache) was Robert Borden over 100 years ago. So I’m not sure I can see any politico-moustachio relationship yet.

On the world stage, there are a few examples of current fuzzy faced politicians. India's Prime Minister Modi is known for his distinctive white beard, and the country's media took note when 18 of his 58 ministers inaugurated into his new Cabinet last summer had beards. In the UK, when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister, her dislike of facial hair led to accusations of "pogonophobia" - defined as an extreme dislike of beards. But more recently, the outgoing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was the first bearded man to head a British political party since 1908.

In some parts of the world, facial hair can signify a lot more than personal style. In many parts of the Middle East, political leaders with beards have been viewed as a symbol of Islamist hardliners.
In the US, beards have been perceived as a political turn-off for voters for decades and the refuge of the defeated candidate.

So the big question of the day is, “Will Trudeau’s beard be a hit or a miss?”  Only time will tell!

ARE YOU READY FOR A LAW AGAINST GOSSIPING?

ARE YOU READY FOR A LAW AGAINST GOSSIPING?

I have been on a bit of a rampage with a number of blogs that question the need for ever-increasing rules, laws, and regulations that compound our lives. Most of the added tedium of more and more regulations generate more problems than they solve. I just read of one new law that may have some merit.

“There is no question that gossiping can spread inaccurate information, which in some cases can cause arguments or heighten disputes between people. To prevent these things from happening, a mayor passed a law in the town of Binalonan in the Philippines that bans gossiping. If people break the gossiping law, they could be fined and made to do community service. Town officials claim that law is bound to improve the quality of life for people living there.”        

I am not sure it would really work, but it is a sign of some creative thinking. If we were to consider such a law would it be the downfall of much television programming? All of the talk shows, whether political in nature or sports talk shows, thrive on hysterically pointing fingers or making diffuse accusations or unfounded speculation on all topics. Most commentators would deny that their “expert opinions” are gossip, but they certainly would not be too willing or able to provide concrete evidence to support many of their assertions.

How would the thousands of lies, fabrications, and distorted reports that emanate from Trump the Tweeter be characterized? I would be delighted to compile the amount of the fines applicable and would love to set up a community service program for him to work off his unfounded ramblings. He could humbly toss out paper towel rolls to victims of natural disasters who have been displaced from their homes as he demonstrated so warmly in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. He is a natural security blanket of empathy!

Then as my mind began to pick up speed, I wondered if perhaps in the hope of enhancing human interactions even more than banning gossip, how about outlawing public discussions of politics and sports altogether. If you want to create some instant animosity in any group, just bring up the name “Trump” or “Trudeau” and you will observe an instant formation of supporters and distractors. Peace on earth and goodwill towards men will never be observed if a hot political topic is tossed on the table for discussion. If we eliminate it from TV, just think of the positive spillover effect on families who could now watch such fine fare as Schitt’s Creek, the Bachelor, and the Big Bang Theory. I am sure that peace on earth would have a much greater opportunity!

Sports programming would also be improved is we eliminated opinionated colour commentators, panels of analysts, live interviews of athletes, and the pre and post-game babbling. Show the game in real-time, forget all of the predictions, critiques, second-guessing and final summaries. They are unnecessary and add nothing to the game except distraction and raising the ire of fans who might disagree with some opinion or observation of an “expert”.

So my law, which would incorporate no gossiping, no political conversations, and no sports analysis, might lead to a more peaceful and less agitated world. What do you think?

CAN ANYONE CLARIFY THESE TWO ISSUES FOR ME?

CAN ANYONE CLARIFY THESE TWO ISSUES FOR ME?

The US has just passed a law effective January 1, 2020, that forbids the sale of tobacco or marijuana or any smoking paraphernalia to anyone under the age of 21. The previous age was 18. At first glance, this change appears to be a good idea, but is it really? The dangers of smoking have been known and disseminated for decades, including warnings of possible death boldly stamped on cigarette packages. I am not against the change, I only wonder if the horse is not already out of the barn and vanished far over the hill.

Since I was a kid in another geologic era, kids have been lured to try smoking at a very early age. I recall as a ten-year-old, an old storekeeper in our little village would sell one cigarette to any kid who had two cents. I certainly don’t think that times have changed much in that regard and anyone who wants a pack of ciggies can find someone a little older to buy them one.

Raising the age to 21 will do little to prevent, especially teenagers, from getting their hands on tobacco or marijuana products whenever they want. It’s a legal change that will do little to change smoking habits; it will only make it a little more of an inconvenience to the underage buyer. What have we really achieved?

                                             ————————————————

A big attraction of the US Super Bowl is the plethora of original television commercials that are unveiled during the telecast of the big football game. Many viewers are more interested in the commercials than the competition on the field. In recent years, Canadian television viewers have been prevented from viewing the American commercials by the CRTC. Of course, we were outraged with this censorship.

Our Canadian dissatisfaction has now reached all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court. They just made their ruling on the matter and lo and behold they upheld the ruling NOT to show American commercials on Canadian television during the Super Bowl again this year. I personally don’t care, as you can see them all the next day on YouTube and not have to suffer through the four hours of boring, concussion-inducing, head-banging that is called football.

What concerns me is why in the world our Supreme Court is even spending an hour dealing with this issue? I thought the Supreme Court would have far more pressing issues to concern themselves with than what kind of advertising we see on TV during one football game. Are there no serious cases of fraud, bribery, money laundering, terrorism, or SNC Lavalin stuff to deal with? I would have thought that there were more than enough issues stemming from political corruption, criminal gang activity, or indigenous protests to keep the Court busy all year long!

CAN YOU NAME THE KING OF FAST FOODS?

CAN YOU NAME THE KING OF FAST FOODS?

I just returned from a neighbour foodcourt and began to muse about the number of different fast foods that are now available. Each country seems to have entered the fast-food market. Old standards such as hotdogs and hamburgers are now being challenged by new attractions such as sushi selections, shawarma, poke bowls, tacos, and souvlaki. My nomination for the most popular fast food is the iconic french fry. Is there anyone who will not snack on a french fry?

French fries made their first official appearance in the 17th century in  Europe, but are now a recognized food in almost any country in the world. Whether they are called fries in North America, chips in Britain, frites in France, or finger chips in India, they are all basically deep-fried pieces of potato.

French fries are served hot, either soft or crispy, and are generally eaten as part of lunch or dinner or by themselves as a snack, and they commonly appear on the menus of diners, fast food restaurants, pubs, and bars. After canned baby food, the first real food that any baby samples, once they can chew, is a warm french fry. Next time you are in a restaurant, I can guarantee that some eight-month-old child will be gumming a french fry to death. Teenagers garnish almost any take out item with an order of fries and seniors will soften their fries with vinegar and/or ketchup and gum them up just like the wee ones do. Everyone loves them

French fries come in all shapes and sizes. You can order straight cut fries, crinkle fries, curly fries, spicy fries, and sweet potato fries. They can also be disguised as chips, tater tots, shoestring fries or ‘tato wedges. They can be plain, or salted, or dipped in a variety of garnishes such as vinegar, or ketchup or gravy or mayonnaise or other local specialties.  Fries can be topped more heavily, as in the dishes of poutine or chili cheese fries. A baked variant, oven chips, uses less oil or no oil and has been designed for the more health-conscious diner.

The origin of the french fry is not really clear. One enduring origin story holds that french fries were invented by street vendors on the Pont Neuf bridge in Paris in 1789, just before the outbreak of the French Revolution. However, a reference exists in France from 1775 to "a few pieces of fried potato" and to "fried potatoes”.

The French origin has been disputed by Belgium where historians claim potatoes were being fried in the late-1600s. How they supposedly came up with the idea was that it was very common for the people to fry up small fish as a staple for their meals. However, when the rivers froze up thick enough, it tended to make it somewhat difficult to get fish. So instead of frying up fish in these times, they would cut up potatoes in long thin slices, and fry them up as they did the fish. This first indication that fish and chips were a regular menu item will probably not sit well with the folks of the British Isles who have elevated this food item to a national treasure.

Regardless of their origin, the french fry is without a doubt the King of Fast Foods. Do I hear any challenges?