As my regular viewers know, I'm very much in favour of same-sex marriage, for a variety of reasons. However, that doesn't mean that I like some of the more crass tactics of the left wing, any more than I do the right wing. Case in point, the Miss USA pageant was held a week or so ago, and one of the judges was notorious tabloid blogger Perez Hilton (don't ask me why, let's just play along). During the Q&A portion, he asked Miss California -- Carrie Prejean -- what she thought of same-sex marriage. Her answer was simply that while she personally isn't fond of it, she does like that others can choose it if they wish. Maybe not the most enlightened point of view, but a reasonable one all the same. Mr. Hilton, on the other hand, not only eliminated Prejean from the competition over it, but he wasted no time in calling her a "dumb bitch" pretty much everywhere he could.
Not surprisingly, this attracted a lot of attention and criticism, and not just from predictable sources like conservative pundits. Even people who are moderate or liberal have condemned Hilton's antics, because he basically went out of his way to humiliate Prejean over an opinion that Hilton himself asked to hear. Then again, this is typical of Hilton's history, so I won't beat the dead horse of just how appalling and despicable a so-called human being, he is.
I was talking about this with my friend the other night, and while we were discussing much of the same points I just presented here, it suddenly dawned on me: who the hell cares about Miss California's politics? It's a BEAUTY PAGENT, for fuck's sake, and one that most people don't even notice! I can't remember at all, the last time I even heard of Miss America creating a law, or holding a real office, can you? If Carrie Prejean ever runs for Governor, then we can talk, but until then I can think of about sixty-eight other things I'd rather worry about.
What more can I say? All that Perez Hilton did, was make himself look like an obnoxious and classless asshole, which to him is a full-time job anyway, not to mention do a lot of damage to those of us who really are interested in tolerance and equality. Sometimes I wonder if sooner or later, the real Paris Hilton will wake up to this jerk and say "I've REALLY got to get my name back from this idiot". That's it for me.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Banning Spray Paint
Last week, we had yet another stupid idea from our group of morons at Hamilton City Hall. If you're not from around here, I should explain: like any large city, we have a pretty heavy graffiti problem. Now, what do our local representatives want to do about it? Make it illegal to sell spray-paint, to people under 18. I can already tell you, it ain't going to work, Bunky!
This blunder is the brain child of Councillor Chad Collins, who has saved me a lot of trouble in poking holes in it, with this pitch: "Any kind of business operation that has aerosol cans for sale, we could implement a licence -- it doesn't have to be a large fee -- similar to cigarettes."
There's just one problem: I know for a fact that this city can't even keep 13 year-olds from buying cigarettes, no matter what laws are thrown at it, so how the hell do they expect an age limit on spray-paint to work?
One of the reasons I find it so enraging at times to be in Hamilton, is that it is really really self-conscious about a clean image, yet it doesn't like to do much about it. We've always had a poor environmental record, but our waste collectors can't be bothered to pick up recycling a lot of times, nor do we do much about the smog spewing from our steel mills. We have road signs all over the place that are falling over, yet the city is adamant that no one talks about it openly. We have a lot of spray paint in public places, yet rather than do something about social assistance and community services -- so the vandals actually have something to do or think about, besides living in this shithole town -- Hamilton just wants to put a small cash grab on the people selling paint. It's known as sweeping something under the rug. That doesn't usually work, either. Enough said.
This blunder is the brain child of Councillor Chad Collins, who has saved me a lot of trouble in poking holes in it, with this pitch: "Any kind of business operation that has aerosol cans for sale, we could implement a licence -- it doesn't have to be a large fee -- similar to cigarettes."
There's just one problem: I know for a fact that this city can't even keep 13 year-olds from buying cigarettes, no matter what laws are thrown at it, so how the hell do they expect an age limit on spray-paint to work?
One of the reasons I find it so enraging at times to be in Hamilton, is that it is really really self-conscious about a clean image, yet it doesn't like to do much about it. We've always had a poor environmental record, but our waste collectors can't be bothered to pick up recycling a lot of times, nor do we do much about the smog spewing from our steel mills. We have road signs all over the place that are falling over, yet the city is adamant that no one talks about it openly. We have a lot of spray paint in public places, yet rather than do something about social assistance and community services -- so the vandals actually have something to do or think about, besides living in this shithole town -- Hamilton just wants to put a small cash grab on the people selling paint. It's known as sweeping something under the rug. That doesn't usually work, either. Enough said.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Find Victoria Stafford
On the afternoon of April 8, 2009, an eight year old girl from Woodstock, Ontario, went missing. Victoria Stafford left her school at around 3:30 pm, and never made it home. As of this recording, she hasn't been seen since. Because the local police were virtually non-existent in this case, it is not surprising that they were on the business end of a lot of public outrage, until provincial police finally had to take over. Given the circumstances I'm going to try to be delicate about it, but I still have to agree.
To begin with, the Oxford Community Police not only did not call an Amber Alert, or immediately report Tori's disappearance to the public, but they didn't even call it an abduction. The Ontario Provincial Police did that themselves, a full nine days after she was taken. It seems that the only basis for any of these moves, is this grainy surveillance video, where a girl seemingly matching Tori's description is walking casually with a woman who remains unidentified.
Thankfully some sense is finally prevaling in this case, so far be it for me to tell a supposedly trained police officer how to do his or her job. However, my understanding is that if any adult other than a child's parent or guardian has taken posession of said child, and gone into hiding, then it is an abduction. It doesn't matter that much how nicely they do it. After all, how many children have been lured over the years with promises of candy, toys, or a puppy? What if Tori's abductor claimed that her family was in trouble? There are a lot of ways to trick someone who's trusting, whether they're a child or not.
Of course the further sticking point in this "logic" is that strictly speaking, it's impossible to be sure in the video if that girl is even Tori in the first place. For all we know, this could be any other mother and daughter, minding their own business, while the real Tori HAD been grabbed elsewhere. In other words, while the requirements of the Amber Alert are surprisingly strict, it seems that hiding behind them here is due to an extremely dangerous presumption. Another really stupid move was that the Oxford police seemed very certain that Tori is still in Woodstock -- but what can they possibly base that on, if they don't even know who took her in the first place?
My apologies if this rant comes off as a bit mean-spirited towards the local police, but the reality is that this girl can literally be anywhere. While the OPP is no doubt doing its best to leave no stone unturned, the fact is they can only do so much without the public's help. Tori Stafford is a thin blond-haired eight year old that was last seen wearing a black Hannah Montana Jacket with a white fur-lined hood, a green shirt/sweater with pink lettering, a denim skirt, black leotards and black shoes. The woman believed to have taken her has straight dark hair, is dressed in dark trousers, a white puffy jacket and a bag slung over one shoulder. She is described as white, 19 to 25 years old, about 5-foot-2 tall and 120 to 125 pounds. If you see anyone matching either of these descriptions, please call the Ontario Provincial Police at 1-888-310-1122. One way or another, let's all do our part to bring Tori back home. That's it for me.
To begin with, the Oxford Community Police not only did not call an Amber Alert, or immediately report Tori's disappearance to the public, but they didn't even call it an abduction. The Ontario Provincial Police did that themselves, a full nine days after she was taken. It seems that the only basis for any of these moves, is this grainy surveillance video, where a girl seemingly matching Tori's description is walking casually with a woman who remains unidentified.
Thankfully some sense is finally prevaling in this case, so far be it for me to tell a supposedly trained police officer how to do his or her job. However, my understanding is that if any adult other than a child's parent or guardian has taken posession of said child, and gone into hiding, then it is an abduction. It doesn't matter that much how nicely they do it. After all, how many children have been lured over the years with promises of candy, toys, or a puppy? What if Tori's abductor claimed that her family was in trouble? There are a lot of ways to trick someone who's trusting, whether they're a child or not.
Of course the further sticking point in this "logic" is that strictly speaking, it's impossible to be sure in the video if that girl is even Tori in the first place. For all we know, this could be any other mother and daughter, minding their own business, while the real Tori HAD been grabbed elsewhere. In other words, while the requirements of the Amber Alert are surprisingly strict, it seems that hiding behind them here is due to an extremely dangerous presumption. Another really stupid move was that the Oxford police seemed very certain that Tori is still in Woodstock -- but what can they possibly base that on, if they don't even know who took her in the first place?
My apologies if this rant comes off as a bit mean-spirited towards the local police, but the reality is that this girl can literally be anywhere. While the OPP is no doubt doing its best to leave no stone unturned, the fact is they can only do so much without the public's help. Tori Stafford is a thin blond-haired eight year old that was last seen wearing a black Hannah Montana Jacket with a white fur-lined hood, a green shirt/sweater with pink lettering, a denim skirt, black leotards and black shoes. The woman believed to have taken her has straight dark hair, is dressed in dark trousers, a white puffy jacket and a bag slung over one shoulder. She is described as white, 19 to 25 years old, about 5-foot-2 tall and 120 to 125 pounds. If you see anyone matching either of these descriptions, please call the Ontario Provincial Police at 1-888-310-1122. One way or another, let's all do our part to bring Tori back home. That's it for me.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Gay Marriage in Iowa and Vermont
Gay marriage is once again in the news, with Iowa and Vermont being the most recent states to legalize it. To be honest I'm a little sick of defending it by now, but it is worth mentioning that a conservative Christian group in the U.S. is taking some pretty heavy measures to attack it.
A few days ago, a group called the "National Organization for Marriage" put an ad on TV and YouTube, claiming to be supportive of gays and lesbians, yet threatening that homosexuals have a vague plan to force heterosexuals to change their lives. Fortunately, good sense is prevailing, and not only is no one agreeing with it, but most think that it's completely ridiculous.
Frankly, pretty much all of the anti-gay marriage arguments are so stupid that it's a wonder that anyone has ever taken them seriously. The National Organization alone is claiming that in Vermont the legislature has taken away religious liberties. First of all, no proposal to legalize same-sex marriage has ever forced a church to conduct one of these ceremonies -- it simply means that the state government has to recognize it, whether the couples chooses to marry through a judge or a clergyman who actually reads those parts of scripture that demand compassion. Second of all, I can't help but notice that this group is unable to be pleased by attempts to satisfy its own criticisms -- the anti-marriage crowd has always said that the courts shouldn't create the law -- even though, strictly speaking, they are just troubleshooting existing laws, which is exactly what they're supposed to do on behalf of the people. Yet, when Vermont legalizes gay marriage with a free vote in the State Senate, the religious right are still up in arms. Finally, the stories concocted by this group are very one-sided and dishonest: for instance, the people who claim they were persecuted over their beliefs, were actually nurses or city groups refusing to serve gays and lesbians -- which is in itself against the law.
So, to anyone paying attention, it's pretty clear that they don't really care about religious freedom, they care about gays not having the same rights as straight people. It's rather like Bush's Defense of Marriage Act -- it doesn't forbid partners from cheating on each other, or getting married just to get rich and famous, so it's not really a Defense of Marriage -- it's an Attack on Gays.
Which leads me to one last point: at the risk of making a strawman argument, it's hardly a secret that -- being socially conservative -- the same sort of people condemning gay marriage have never taken the whole "equal rights" thing very seriously. After all, fifty years ago they used God to keep blacks and whites from being in mixed company, or treated as equals. A hundred years ago, they made sure that women were treated like property rather than people. Two hundred years ago, they encouraged the slave trade. Four hundred years ago, they made sure that so-called witches were murdered by church-run governments. Five hundred years ago, they supported wiping out most of the Indians in this part of the world, and so on. So, for these racist, sexist, homophobic scumbags to cry about the so-called persecution of Christianity in North America, is not only bogus, but it pisses on the graves of literally millions of innocent people. By the way, the irony does not escape me that the directors of the National Organization for Marriage include women and black men; am I the only one who has asked these clowns why gays and lesbians don't deserve their rights too?
If there's anything else that can possibly make the downfall of the so-called Christian Right more entertaining, it's that every so often we hear about one of these conservative ministers getting caught doing something that's not only highly embarassing, but a crime. Embezzlement, drug abuse, prostitution, sexual abuse, you name it they've done it. This leads me to my biggest beef with these goons: leaving aside that in North America, the government is supposed to be secular and respecting everyone's rights, as opposed to just conservative Christians... before you even dare to declare yourself the world's moral police, you had better make damn sure that your own slate is clean. It's pretty dumb when a law-abiding atheist is being talked down to by a "Christian" who not only stirs up anger and hate every chance he can get, but thinks nothing of Jesus' own statement "That which you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me." Enough said.
A few days ago, a group called the "National Organization for Marriage" put an ad on TV and YouTube, claiming to be supportive of gays and lesbians, yet threatening that homosexuals have a vague plan to force heterosexuals to change their lives. Fortunately, good sense is prevailing, and not only is no one agreeing with it, but most think that it's completely ridiculous.
Frankly, pretty much all of the anti-gay marriage arguments are so stupid that it's a wonder that anyone has ever taken them seriously. The National Organization alone is claiming that in Vermont the legislature has taken away religious liberties. First of all, no proposal to legalize same-sex marriage has ever forced a church to conduct one of these ceremonies -- it simply means that the state government has to recognize it, whether the couples chooses to marry through a judge or a clergyman who actually reads those parts of scripture that demand compassion. Second of all, I can't help but notice that this group is unable to be pleased by attempts to satisfy its own criticisms -- the anti-marriage crowd has always said that the courts shouldn't create the law -- even though, strictly speaking, they are just troubleshooting existing laws, which is exactly what they're supposed to do on behalf of the people. Yet, when Vermont legalizes gay marriage with a free vote in the State Senate, the religious right are still up in arms. Finally, the stories concocted by this group are very one-sided and dishonest: for instance, the people who claim they were persecuted over their beliefs, were actually nurses or city groups refusing to serve gays and lesbians -- which is in itself against the law.
So, to anyone paying attention, it's pretty clear that they don't really care about religious freedom, they care about gays not having the same rights as straight people. It's rather like Bush's Defense of Marriage Act -- it doesn't forbid partners from cheating on each other, or getting married just to get rich and famous, so it's not really a Defense of Marriage -- it's an Attack on Gays.
Which leads me to one last point: at the risk of making a strawman argument, it's hardly a secret that -- being socially conservative -- the same sort of people condemning gay marriage have never taken the whole "equal rights" thing very seriously. After all, fifty years ago they used God to keep blacks and whites from being in mixed company, or treated as equals. A hundred years ago, they made sure that women were treated like property rather than people. Two hundred years ago, they encouraged the slave trade. Four hundred years ago, they made sure that so-called witches were murdered by church-run governments. Five hundred years ago, they supported wiping out most of the Indians in this part of the world, and so on. So, for these racist, sexist, homophobic scumbags to cry about the so-called persecution of Christianity in North America, is not only bogus, but it pisses on the graves of literally millions of innocent people. By the way, the irony does not escape me that the directors of the National Organization for Marriage include women and black men; am I the only one who has asked these clowns why gays and lesbians don't deserve their rights too?
If there's anything else that can possibly make the downfall of the so-called Christian Right more entertaining, it's that every so often we hear about one of these conservative ministers getting caught doing something that's not only highly embarassing, but a crime. Embezzlement, drug abuse, prostitution, sexual abuse, you name it they've done it. This leads me to my biggest beef with these goons: leaving aside that in North America, the government is supposed to be secular and respecting everyone's rights, as opposed to just conservative Christians... before you even dare to declare yourself the world's moral police, you had better make damn sure that your own slate is clean. It's pretty dumb when a law-abiding atheist is being talked down to by a "Christian" who not only stirs up anger and hate every chance he can get, but thinks nothing of Jesus' own statement "That which you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me." Enough said.
Monday, April 13, 2009
OMFG It's Twitter!!!
Those of you who remember my rant about the iPhone, know that I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with modern and trendy gadgets. I don't have MSN or Yahoo Messenger, mainly because I don't trust the software and am rarely online at the same time as most of my friends; I don't have a gaming console because I simply don't play that many video games; I don't own a cell phone because I don't need to make a lot of phone calls outside of the house, the list goes on. Heck, I needed to get dragged kicking and screaming onto Facebook, and the only reason I did was because an increasing number of my friends were pestering me with invites -- plus it's free and I don't need to install anything on the family computer. SO, you can probably tell what I think about the latest fad, Twitter.
Having been on Facebook for a couple of years now, I'm pretty aware that one of the more popular features is the ability to tell people whatever you're doing, on the fly, through the status changes. It was one of the site's smaller quirks, but still something that everyone used... so naturally, their competitors needed to copy it. MySpace put up their own take a few months ago, which is pretty much the same. Then along comes Twitter, which is basically nothing but status changes. Sooooo what's so cool about that??
I'm sorry, but my idea of a good time, isn't reading about every single thing that a person does in his or her life. And if I signed up for it myself, I'd imagine that my friends and fans would want something better from me than "Steve is reading the paper", or "Steve is watching the latest review from the Angry Video Game Nerd", or "Steve is playing his guitar", or "Steve is eating turkey jambalaya", or "Steve is puking because he forgot to get rid of the stuffing first"... Need I go on? Let's look past what some famous twat dictates is cool, and get real for a minute: day to day life, just isn't that interesting. If you're following a newspaper, or band, or something else that's really active then fine, but for pretty much everyone else you've got to have way too much freaking time on your hands to have fun with it.
While we're on the subject, why the heck do all these social networking sites think that the best way to attract customers is to just copy what the other guys do? Is there really something wrong with trying to do something DIFFERENT? When I got into MySpace and Facebook, they both had pretty much their own approaches and personalities -- now they're almost exactly the same. Even MSN is looking more like Facebook all the time! I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if they're just going to merge the sites sooner or later, where else can you go if all you do is clone everything? Granted, these are free web sites, so maybe you can only expect so much, but COME ON, GROW A PAIR WOULD YOU PLEASE?? TIE IT INTO OUR E-MAILS OR XBOX ACCOUNTS, BUILD IT INTO OUR CARS, BROADCAST IT INTO MY FILLINGS, I DON'T CARE, JUST DO SOMETHING BOLD!!!
[Steve had to be taken away at this point to be given his Benedryl, but he was fine a few moments later]
Okay... I'm good. The point is, when the guys running these high tech distractions actually do something interesting for a change, I might be willing to give it more than the fifteen minutes that they might deserve. Enough said.
Having been on Facebook for a couple of years now, I'm pretty aware that one of the more popular features is the ability to tell people whatever you're doing, on the fly, through the status changes. It was one of the site's smaller quirks, but still something that everyone used... so naturally, their competitors needed to copy it. MySpace put up their own take a few months ago, which is pretty much the same. Then along comes Twitter, which is basically nothing but status changes. Sooooo what's so cool about that??
I'm sorry, but my idea of a good time, isn't reading about every single thing that a person does in his or her life. And if I signed up for it myself, I'd imagine that my friends and fans would want something better from me than "Steve is reading the paper", or "Steve is watching the latest review from the Angry Video Game Nerd", or "Steve is playing his guitar", or "Steve is eating turkey jambalaya", or "Steve is puking because he forgot to get rid of the stuffing first"... Need I go on? Let's look past what some famous twat dictates is cool, and get real for a minute: day to day life, just isn't that interesting. If you're following a newspaper, or band, or something else that's really active then fine, but for pretty much everyone else you've got to have way too much freaking time on your hands to have fun with it.
While we're on the subject, why the heck do all these social networking sites think that the best way to attract customers is to just copy what the other guys do? Is there really something wrong with trying to do something DIFFERENT? When I got into MySpace and Facebook, they both had pretty much their own approaches and personalities -- now they're almost exactly the same. Even MSN is looking more like Facebook all the time! I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if they're just going to merge the sites sooner or later, where else can you go if all you do is clone everything? Granted, these are free web sites, so maybe you can only expect so much, but COME ON, GROW A PAIR WOULD YOU PLEASE?? TIE IT INTO OUR E-MAILS OR XBOX ACCOUNTS, BUILD IT INTO OUR CARS, BROADCAST IT INTO MY FILLINGS, I DON'T CARE, JUST DO SOMETHING BOLD!!!
[Steve had to be taken away at this point to be given his Benedryl, but he was fine a few moments later]
Okay... I'm good. The point is, when the guys running these high tech distractions actually do something interesting for a change, I might be willing to give it more than the fifteen minutes that they might deserve. Enough said.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Think of the Children
Sexual abuse is nothing less than a world wide plague, happening in every country, regardless of gender, social class, religion, or -- worst of all -- age. According to recent statistics, 1 in 4 girls, and 1 in 6 boys, is sexually assaulted before they turn 18. This is one of the reasons why April is National Child Abuse Awareness month in Canada, as well as Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention month. In Hamilton, I'm involved in a homegrown event to spread awareness of support groups and hotline numbers, simply called the Child and Sexual Abuse Awareness Event.
It will be held on April 25th, from 12:30 to 5:00 pm at the corner of King St and James in Downtown Hamilton. In other words, it's the entrance to Jackson Square, closest to Gore Park. What we're doing is collecting and re-distributing pamphlets and phone numbers to support services in the Hamilton area, so we won't be taking donations -- save those for the actual shelters and clinics, please.
It's also a busking event -- sort of a small scale benefit concert -- so if you're a poet, singer, or musician, by all means come on down and get people's attention. And boy do we ever need to...
According to the most recent stats I can find, the median age for a sexual abuse survivor, is just 9 years old. Nearly all are abused by someone who they know and trust -- as many as 40% by a family member. It also happens a lot more than you might think -- it's estimated that in this part of the world alone, there are about 40 million childhood sexual abuse survivors. Think about that: not only is every fourth or fifth kid in public school being raped by a close friend or family member, but altogether you can fill an average sized country with the number of kids being preyed on -- no, make that betrayed and shattered.
It really is something of a miracle that any of these kids can get themselves back together after something that horrible, and without help, the odds are definitely against them; children who have been sexually assaulted are much more likely later in life to become severely depressed, permanently traumatized, develop eating disorders, lash out, get hooked on booze or drugs, attempt or commit suicide, or worst of all, become abusers themselves.
Finally, I really really hope this goes without saying, but if you have any solid reason to believe that a child is being abused, report it to the police immediately. Most sexual offenders have up to 9 victims, others have 40 or more. It has been said by some, that the average molester may have as many as 400 victims in his or her lifetime. Speak out for them -- you may be surprised at how many of them are children you see every day as you go to work.
So, if you want to contribute to this, please e-mail Lindsay of The Sadie Project, at thesadieproject@gmail.com, or just drop by the corner of King and James in Hamilton, on the afternoon of April 25. Once again, don't worry about donations, just bring whatever information you can so we can then get it out to the people who need it. That's it for me.
It will be held on April 25th, from 12:30 to 5:00 pm at the corner of King St and James in Downtown Hamilton. In other words, it's the entrance to Jackson Square, closest to Gore Park. What we're doing is collecting and re-distributing pamphlets and phone numbers to support services in the Hamilton area, so we won't be taking donations -- save those for the actual shelters and clinics, please.
It's also a busking event -- sort of a small scale benefit concert -- so if you're a poet, singer, or musician, by all means come on down and get people's attention. And boy do we ever need to...
According to the most recent stats I can find, the median age for a sexual abuse survivor, is just 9 years old. Nearly all are abused by someone who they know and trust -- as many as 40% by a family member. It also happens a lot more than you might think -- it's estimated that in this part of the world alone, there are about 40 million childhood sexual abuse survivors. Think about that: not only is every fourth or fifth kid in public school being raped by a close friend or family member, but altogether you can fill an average sized country with the number of kids being preyed on -- no, make that betrayed and shattered.
It really is something of a miracle that any of these kids can get themselves back together after something that horrible, and without help, the odds are definitely against them; children who have been sexually assaulted are much more likely later in life to become severely depressed, permanently traumatized, develop eating disorders, lash out, get hooked on booze or drugs, attempt or commit suicide, or worst of all, become abusers themselves.
Finally, I really really hope this goes without saying, but if you have any solid reason to believe that a child is being abused, report it to the police immediately. Most sexual offenders have up to 9 victims, others have 40 or more. It has been said by some, that the average molester may have as many as 400 victims in his or her lifetime. Speak out for them -- you may be surprised at how many of them are children you see every day as you go to work.
So, if you want to contribute to this, please e-mail Lindsay of The Sadie Project, at thesadieproject@gmail.com, or just drop by the corner of King and James in Hamilton, on the afternoon of April 25. Once again, don't worry about donations, just bring whatever information you can so we can then get it out to the people who need it. That's it for me.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Epic Security Fail!
Air travel has been a fairly routine part of our lives for about fifty years, so we all know about the extensive security we see at airports, and certainly after 9/11 and numerous bombings we're aware of the risks that make us need the security. There's just one problem: it isn't there as much as we might think. This is yet another thing in a long list of complaints I've made that might get me on a watchlist some day, but apparently some Canadian airports are about as secure as a screen door on a submarine.
Recently, Transport Minister John Baird and Liberal Senator Colin Kenny went undercover through the country's busiest airport, Pearson International in Toronto. They were monitored from a distance by police officers, as they repeatedly went through restricted areas, including the tarmac and within reach of several aircraft. So suffice it to say, if someone wanted to put a bomb on a plane in Toronto, it would evidently not be very hard. To make matters worse, the same sort of thing is known or suspected to take place at several other airports across North America alone.
This has already royally pissed off a lot of people, and with good reason. Travellers and taxpayers pay through the nose for security measures at these airports, and we put up with tedious things like undoing belt buckles and taking off our shoes in certain areas because we're led to believe it will help prevent another terrorist attack. But the whole thing is kind of pointless, if no one working at the airport can be bothered to lock a goddamn door.
Naturally, the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, which runs security at Pearson, is not only denying that there's a security leak, but is punishing the on-site police officers who monitored the operation. Excuse me fellas, but that's not reassuring the public, that's covering your asses. The cops involved were doing their jobs, as well as answering to a higher government authority than you -- so your punishing them is called "retaliation" in legal and labour circles, good luck getting out of that one. Also, if a couple of guys in ballcaps and jackets -- with no ID -- can just waltz up to an airplane with no questions asked, you don't need to be a genius to know that that's a security breach. Enough said.
Recently, Transport Minister John Baird and Liberal Senator Colin Kenny went undercover through the country's busiest airport, Pearson International in Toronto. They were monitored from a distance by police officers, as they repeatedly went through restricted areas, including the tarmac and within reach of several aircraft. So suffice it to say, if someone wanted to put a bomb on a plane in Toronto, it would evidently not be very hard. To make matters worse, the same sort of thing is known or suspected to take place at several other airports across North America alone.
This has already royally pissed off a lot of people, and with good reason. Travellers and taxpayers pay through the nose for security measures at these airports, and we put up with tedious things like undoing belt buckles and taking off our shoes in certain areas because we're led to believe it will help prevent another terrorist attack. But the whole thing is kind of pointless, if no one working at the airport can be bothered to lock a goddamn door.
Naturally, the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, which runs security at Pearson, is not only denying that there's a security leak, but is punishing the on-site police officers who monitored the operation. Excuse me fellas, but that's not reassuring the public, that's covering your asses. The cops involved were doing their jobs, as well as answering to a higher government authority than you -- so your punishing them is called "retaliation" in legal and labour circles, good luck getting out of that one. Also, if a couple of guys in ballcaps and jackets -- with no ID -- can just waltz up to an airplane with no questions asked, you don't need to be a genius to know that that's a security breach. Enough said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
