Bringing out the dead

There seems to be a growing trend in the media where reporters denigrate a human being’s character after they are the victims of crimes. Yes, you read that right. The media takes subtle jabs people, even victims, if that person is a celebrity, athlete or person of colour.

It happened again today. Last night, NFL safety Sean Taylor was shot and wounded in his home. The details are sketchy. What we do know is: people broke into Taylor’s Dade County home a week ago and left a knife by his bed. Last night Taylor left his bed to investigate a noise at his back door and was shot, once, in the groin, losing so much blood that he faces brain damage if he’s lucky enough to survive.

Here are some subtle jabs at this man’s personal character I took from a Canadian Press article:

Taylor played in his first Pro Bowl last season, where he drew attention by levelling the other team’s punter in what is usually a well-mannered exhibition game.

Taylor has been in trouble numerous times since he was drafted as the No. 5 overall pick in 2004. He has been fined at least seven times during his professional career for late hits and other infractions, including a US$17,000 penalty for spitting in the face of Tampa Bay running back Michael Pittman during a playoff game in January 2006. He also was fined $25,000 for skipping a mandatory rookie symposium shortly after he was drafted.

In 2005, Taylor was accused of brandishing a gun at a man and repeatedly hitting him during a fight that broke out after Taylor and some friends went looking for the people who had allegedly stolen his all-terrain vehicles.

All told, an 879 word article with the supposed purpose of reporting a home robbery contains 279 words discussing Taylor’s brushes with the law. That’s nearly 32 per cent of the story.

At best, this abominable reportage owes to shoddy sensationalist journalism. At worst, it’s another case of indirect racism. The story ensures the reader knows Taylor was a thug, who spit in people’s faces, cheap shot defenseless punters, and waved guns with the wonton abandonment of an uncivilized animal. The purpose, it seems, is not only to inform us a football player may die but that he also may have deserved it.

As contrast look how beloved Canadian Kiefer Sutherland is treated by Reuters. I pulled this from a story on how the Writer’s Guild strike will affect the new season of 24.

The show’s star, Kiefer Sutherland, is also scheduled to do a stint in jail later this year in connection with a drunk-driving conviction.

Not only is the arrest given scant mention – which, I believe, is the proper treatment for something that has nothing to do with the story – but the wording is as friendly as one could hope. Sutherland wasn’t arrested for driving drunk. Rather he is scheduled to do time in connection with a conviction. This clever wording gives the impression he was operative a vehicle under the influence but was connected to some vague drunk driving conviction.

Was Sean Taylor asked for a donation in connection with a spitting incident? No. The story states plainly he spit in another man’s face.

Similarly, in this piece about goaltender Patrick Roy, nowhere does Matt Higgins mention his domestic violence arrest in 2000. I’ll say it again: Higgins did right. There is no reason to include it in this piece. But, would a cocky, brass ill spoken athlete like Sean Taylor receive the same treatment? Obviously, no.

The fact past transgressions are mentioned in a story with enough salacious details (elite football player fights for his life after home invasion) to satisfy the most inattentive reader is irresponsible journalism. What is unforgivable journalism is when it is applied unevenly.

Climate Change

It’s not so much the fact that Stephen Harper continues to ignore the climate change issue, or that he implicitly called the Kyoto Protocol a “socialist scheme” that would do too much harm to his friends in the oil and gas industry, it’s that we knew he was ignorant and we still voted for him.

 

For all the ridicule heaped on the American electorate for their masochistic voting habits, it would appear Canadians are not too far behind.

According to a 2007 Angus Reid survey 77 per cent of Canadians believe global warming is real. A third (32 per cent) call global warming is “the most pressing issue facing humanity today.”

 How real is the impact of global warming for Canadians? Very real. Almost half (47%)think warmer temperatures will impact not only the lives of future generations, but alsotheir own. Women are more inclined to believe this (51%) than men (44%).Only 10% of respondents say global warming will have no influence at all on the planet, while 42% think it will exclusively impact the lives of future generations. 

Yet Canadians, while mostly recognizing the issue’s severity, voted for Harper who is unabashedly against addressing this issue because, as we all know, turning a profit in the oil field is much more important.

Seventy-six per cent were in support of the child care bill the Liberal government introduced before their defeat. Harper scraped it and instead offered families a $1,200 yearly subsidy paid to parents of children six years or younger. Only a third (35%) of Canadians support it.

Somehow this does not dissuade Canadians from lining up behind him.

Certain aspects of his ideology is right on point with a slim majority of the population. For instance, 73 per cent of people want tougher gun laws and 71 per cent are fine treating youths who’ve used a firearm in a crime as adults. Fifty per cent approve of the Afghanistan mission while 45 per cent don’t.

These issues have in common the fact they prey on fear for support. Most Canadians think crime is out of control, and that the court system is too lenient on dealing with it. Yet, only a third of Canada’s 605 homicides involve firearms, far lower than the U.S. So it remains unclear why we are becoming more fearful of guns. As for the War in Afghanistan, the majority of Canadians (22%) believe we are involved only for peacekeeping purposes. Another 18 per cent think we are there for humanitarian and rebuilding aid. Why so many are not clear of our real objective is a subject I’ll discuss on another day.

The fact remains, environmental scientists agree, almost unanimously, we are facing a climate crisis. It seems now, Canadians are bowing under the threat of something bad happening. We now look for a strong, bull headed leader so we can hide behind his pant legs, whether that fear be of environmental catastrophe, marauding gangs, or mentally unstable terrorists. The only difference is, the environmental threat is actually real.

Harper’s War on a Noun

In case you missed it, Stephen Harper has imposed mandatory jail sentences for drug dealers. We’re all quite familiar with the many ways in which drugs tear at the fabric of decent society, so much so that our government not only criminalizes the distribution of said substances but will also punish those who ingest them in their own bodies.

According to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson:

 “Drug producers and dealers threaten the safety of our communities, they must face tougher penalties.” 

This latest law is one of the Federal government’s mandate to crack down on crime, namely by filling our jails with drug dealers, kids, and identity thieves.

I’m assuming federal policy wonks aren’t stupid, and are at least casually familiar with the efficacy of jailing drug dealers. One need look no further than south of the Canadian border to see how good a War of Drugs work.

The United States spends $600 per second on the drug war. So far, in 2007, 1,414,723 people have been arrested for drug offenses, half for cannabis violations. Yet, drug use remains constant, and has done so since 2000.

Ethan Nadelmann, founder and director of Drug Policy Alliance says:

 “The United States ranks first in the world in per-capita incarceration, with roughly five per cent of the earth’s population but 25 per cent of the total incarcerated population. Russia and China simply can’t keep up. Among the 2.2 million people behind bars today in the United States, roughly half a million are locked up for drug-law violations, and hundreds of thousands more for other “drug- related” offences. The U.S. “war on drugs” costs at least $40 billion U.S. a year in direct costs, and tens of billions more in indirect costs.” 

To determine why the U.S. is so determined to persist with a preposterous policy, it would be helpful to look at the origin of illegal drugs compared to legal ones, and who is most likely to face incarceration under this rouse.

To answer the first: cocaine comes from Columbia (and therefore crack), heroin from Afghanistan whereas tobacco can be readily found in the U.S. while alcohol can be easily distilled anywhere. When you factor in the revenue these poor countries stand to gain from a legal drug trade, it’s not hard to see why the U.S. is so opposed to it. As to who strict drug laws penalize the most are minorities and the poor. Drug use among the higher educated – such as college students – is relatively equal to drug use among minorities, yet more police resources are allocated to low income neighbourhoods.

Everybody’s favourite anarchist Noam Chomsky describes strict drug laws as follows:

 “US domestic drug policy does not carry out its stated goals, and policymakers are well aware of that. If it isn’t about reducing substance abuse, what is it about? It is reasonably clear, both from current actions and the historical record, that substances tend to be criminalized when they are associated with the so-called dangerous classes, that the criminalization of certain substances is a technique of social control. The economic policies of the last 20 years are a rich man’s version of structural adjustment. You create a superfluous population, which in the US context is largely poor, black, and Hispanic, and a much wider population that is economically dissatisfied.” 

I have a feeling, while we Canadians operate under the Conservatives led by George Bush Lite, we are seeing the beginning of a policy shift toward the United States’ vaguely racist, criminal model. Most won’t care. Some will even applaud the Conservative’s “tough stance”. After all, your average voter does not do drugs therefore we’ll see a positive response.

Saskatchewan Elections

Though they have virtually zero change of winning – to be fair, I’m not sure they even want to win any seats – the Marijuana Party of Saskatchewan is actually raising an important issue in the run up to the provincial election.

I think it’s about time weed use is discussed rationally in the public sphere. Despite the pointed rhetoric on weed’s every ill, we know now that the drug is not all that dangerous. Since we’ve started keeping score, no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose. We know the gateway theory (smoking weed will lead the user to harder, more dangerous drugs) has been shot to bits (since being legalized in Holland, during the 1970s, heroin and cocaine use has declined) and that it does not contain more carcinogens than cigarettes. But, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend everything we learnt from those grainy, grade 8 Health videos were true. Why then does the government allow us to smoke tobacco and not marijuana? Why does our government’s concern for our health exclude cigarettes and alcohol?

The answer, I think, is politically motivated. Canada is already the “Weed Capital” of world. We account for the greatest per capita marijuana usage of all industrialized countries. Police aren’t foaming to arrest people with a couple joints in their pockets either. Cannabis arrests have dropped from over 70,000 in 2001 to just under 60,000 in 2005. Still, a lot of lives have been altered, and a lot of money has been thrown at a drug that is much less harmful than ones which are still legal.

Now that a rational discussion has erupted in the political arena, we can talk about drugs without the pulpit exaggerations for which our representatives are so well renowned.

Photo Radar

Is speed enforcement a revenue-grabbing scheme cooked up by a greedy municipal government or does having police officers jump from behind bushes brandishing a radar gun actually promote safe driving? We’ll be hearing a lot about it now that the city wants to put photo radar devices at intersections, at the same spots as red light cameras. So far, it seems there exist little to no evidence that exceeding the speed limits, causes more accidents, injuries or deaths. In fact, according to a University of California, Irvine study, higher speed limits actually lower fatality rates. See here too. Some studies do show a decrease in traffic accidents though some people argue the studies use total accidents and deliberately ignore collision percentages such as the number of accidents per 1,000,000 drivers.

 

Anyone who has ever driven knows speed traps and photo radars are marginally effective, at best. Most speeders (myself included) slow down when they see a van with tinted windows parked on the road’s shoulder. We slow down, until we’ve passed the car, and accelerate as usual. If I do this, and I know plenty others who do the same, then I’d have to assume municipal governments, who are, I hate to admit, a lot smarter than me, know the same thing. 

 

 I’m going to go with “municipal cash grab” on this one.

More people, more problems

It seems that many Albertans, caught in the crunch of our long running population boom, really, really want the new migrants gone:

Turned off by traffic jams, increasing crime and housing costs, the majority of Calgarians polled by the city said their quality of life has deteriorated in the past three years.The 2007 Citizen Satisfaction Survey found 61 per cent of those polled said their quality of life had declined since 2004, compared to 51 per cent in the 2006 survey.Overall, 67 per cent said life in Calgary was good or very good, a drop from 85 per cent just two years earlier and 77 per cent in 2006.

But does quality of life really decrease as population increases or are native Albertans ill equipped to dealing with the change? Well, let’s look at the minuses of Calgary’s growth. The rapid increase in Calgary’s population has led to urban sprawl, meaning the city is spreading into rural lands, mostly with sparsely spaced, single dwelling family homes several kilometres away from the nearest gas station, grocery store, etc. With Calgary so spread out, people have come to rely heavily on their cars, causing, in some people’s minds, adverse health effects. Back in 2003, the American Journal of Health found that, due to reliance on automobiles, people get fatter in suburbs than inner cities, where amenities are within walking distance. The city’s growth has also resulted in absurd home prices, making it almost impossible to buy or rent unless equipped with a high paying job. For a growing number of Albertans this seems too much to handle. 

About 30,000 people moved to Alberta in June — and nearly 23,000 packed up and left, according to Statistics Canada. 

Once again, does all this suggest quality of life is dropping? I say “yes” and “no.” Although the urban sprawl issue is bothersome – I mean, nobody really wants to spend an hour in their car everyday – and annoy me half to death, it is, at best, a nuisance. The real problem lies in homelessness and home prices. It’s sad we have so many homeless (especially since nearly half of them work) but I believe the situation is somewhat overstated. Only 12 per cent of homeless people live in the streets. This, I believe, shows we are doing at least an average job of making sure as few people as possible are left out in the cold. By the way, this survey was taken in spring, when the climate is a little kinder. During winter months, Calgary opens more emergency beds such as the new Mustard Seed facility in the S.E. Also, only one child below the age of 12 was found in a homeless facility the night of the survey. There were none under five. Now the bad news: homelessness has increased 32 per cent since 2004. However, I don’t agree the blame for this problem lies with Calgary itself as opposed to our government refusing to put our surplus to anything other than oil subsidies. As for home prices, those are set by the market. If someone thinks they can get a cheaper home while maintaining their income, then it on them to move to that place.

Calgary Wages and Inflation

 I pulled the following facts from the AM77 CHQR breaking news page:

The cost of living in Calgary continues to be one of the highest in Canada. The latest inflation report from Statistics Canada shows the cost of living in Calgary jumped by just over .5 per cent in October.
It is costing us 4.6 per cent more to live in Calgary than it did a year ago. Edmonton’s inflation rate is even higher, at 5.4 per cent.
The provincial rate comes in at 5 per cent.
The national inflation rate for october is 2.4 per cent

When we compare the average Albertan wage increase to Alberta’s soaring inflation, the cost of living in Canada’s oil and gas epicenter has unforeseen costs. Your average Calgarian experienced a measly 6.6 per cent family median wage increase in the last ten years. So, the median Calgary family increases their earnings by an average of 0.6 per cent a year, while inflation rises by 4.6 per year. However, it does seem, now the oil and gas boom is in full bloom, median income may be on the rise. In 2004 median income increased 2 per cent from 2003, not even half of inflation but at least it’s a start.

Why isn’t this growing prosperity gap a problem? Little is said on the news and we allow, for better or worse, the PC Party to reign unchecked because the economy is bursting. The issue is possibly not given much attention because the people who account for the top 10 per cent of yearly earnings are keeping pace with inflation. Those who are falling behind (83 per cent of Calgarians below the poverty line) are single women – hardly important enough to illicit the Conservative government’s concern. What amazes me is that those getting left behind take their paycheck at face value so long as the wage is high, while ignoring a growing prosperity gap.

Homeless question

Despite the Mustard Seed’s opening of a new emergency shelter in a S.E. warehouse, the coming winter signifies a fresh round of homeless debate. When most think of homelessness, the image that springs to mind is that of an unshaven, urine soaked wino, begging for change outside the local Wal-Mart. However, this archetype of homelessness is only a subculture of a larger problem – particularly in Calgary. Lured by the prospect of oil money, many flock from the rural corners of Canada, with their families in tow and realize, the jobs aren’t exactly being handed out to those with no oil and gas experience or education. An estimated 45 per cent of homeless people work (put hyperlink here).

Taking into account Calgary’s size and provincial wealth (we’re sitting on a billion dollar surplus) some feel Calgary’s response to homelessness is not only inadequate, it is embarrassing.

The question is, do the well off have a moral responsibility to help the homeless? Or is their poverty a by product of their own bad luck, laziness, personal demons, etc?

First Post

Let me start by first saying I’m a very paranoid person. That one sentence should, I hope, put my following blog rants in proper perspective. I’m in love with conspiracy theories, almost to the point of obsession. I salivate at the thought of a shadowy man, obscured by a silk black curtain, tugging the puppet strings of our economy, our legal system, etc. I think our elections are rigged, and our government corrupt. I do not, however, believe Princess Di was killed by the British secret service using a remote steering device, though I am intruged by the idea.

I say this because being a paranoid conspiracy theorist is akin to suffering from a disease. It excuses all inapproriate behaviour, and I hope my socialist, pinko, tree-hugging posts will be taken lightly and dismissed just as easily.

Anyway, this blog fulfills a portion of my Web Writing and Design requirements, though I may keep it running afterward. The quality of writing will then bottom out (even further than it already is, if you can imagine) but who even expects good writing from a blog anymore.