Who's Sorry Now?

I've always wondered why we should apologize for something we didn't do. Why should we have to say, "I'm sorry" for something that happened years ago, something which we ourselves would never have done in a million years.

Like the Japanese in internment camps. The mistreatment of some children in some residential schools. The institutionalization of Albertans who didn't meet a certain mental standard, or the sterilization of these same folks.

We realize now, with 20/20 hindsight, that some horrible injustices were perpetrated on innocent and underserving victims by men without consciences. Horrible indeed.

But why do WE have to apologize? Why do WE have to pay? It's not my fault, I wouldn't have done it that way if it had been my choice. I didn't make it happen, I am appalled that it did. So why am I apologizing and saying I'm sorry?

The other day people were praising Pam Barrett posthumously for taking up the cause of those who'd been sterilized as a result of the Alberta Eugenics legislation, in place from 1928 until 1972.

I feel bad that some people were institutionalized and/or sterilized when they shouldn't have been. But that's how things were done back then; that doesn't make it right, that's just the way it was. Obviously it wasn't perceived as a horrendous thing, for it took over 40 years to repeal the law. Why wasn't the practice stopped decades earlier?

Despite all the accolades to the contrary, I don't think it was terribly accurate or wise of Pam Barrett to insist that we should pay these people whatever their lawyers determined they could get, especially when said lawyers were certain to get a goodly portion of it, "it" being taxpayers money -- your money and my money. We who had nothing to do with the wrong that was committed, are the ones to pay. Who's going to apologize to us?

Aside from apologizing for something I didn't do, and paying for something I didn't cause, there's the underlying notion that money solves everything. Like, even if you got your balls hacked off you'd be able to maintain an otherwise regular life with all the settlement money. How come nobody has to apologize for that big lie?

What's the Rest of the Story?

I wonder about Christina Haynes -- you know, the 20-year old from Calmar, Alberta who died in a ditch.

What happened anyway? I don't know what horrible things she may have been saying or doing to piss everyone off to the point where they willingly abandoned her, or if she was pushed from a moving vehicle, or if she jumped, or if she accidentally fell or if she rolled drunkenly out of an unlatched door. I don't know, and it shouldn't matter, for whatever the reason for her going from inside the vehicle to outside of it, she did not deserve to die.

I find it hard to believe that there are no charges. Leduc RCMP say no one "contributed to her fall". That implies nothing wrong happened, or at least nothing criminal. Even if perhaps as she exited, she screamed, "And don't try to help me because I want to die!" even then, she should not have been left abandoned, cold and alone, in a ditch.

This is one of those puzzling, confusing stories. Will we ever know what really happened? Whoever was in the vehicle, they're not talking. Will they, someday? I hope so. This whole story screams for resolution.

No Glory for Pistorious?

It was a bad thing that became a good thing, but now it's a bad thing again.

You've heard those distressing stories -- unfortunate individuals who lose an eye or a limb, and then must learn to get along without them. Often they will take their misfortune and turn it around, becoming successful to the point where they embrace their impediment because it was what ultimately got them striving to achieve some amazing goals.

Oscar Pistorius is one such person. He is a sprinter from South Africa, and not just an ordinary sprinter.

Do you know where your fibula are? If you asked Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius, he would certainly know, even though he's never had them. It's the smaller bone in your leg below your knee, on the calf side, opposite the tibia. Necessary for walking and other leg movement. Pistorius was born without fibula; when he was less than a year old his legs were amputated below the knee, and he was introduced to the World of Prosthetics.

Pistorius had the mind and endurance and the spirit of an athlete. In his 20 plus years he has played rugby, water polo, tennis, and was a competitive wrestler. With his athletic prowess, it was almost a given that he would eventually focus on the Olympics.
Beginning with the 2004 Paralympic sprinting events, then the Paralympic athletics world championships in 2006, Pistorius won gold in the 100, 200 and 400 events and broke the world record in the 200m. He was invited by the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) to take part in the Grand Prix in Helsinki in July 2005, an event for athletes without prosthetics. Pistorius was unable to attend, but the door was opened by the IAAF, and he started competing in high calibre races. Last year he ran the 400m at the Rome Golden Gala finishing second. Then the glorious Pistorious set his sights on the Bejing Olympics.
He has been training exhaustively. Seems you can ride the wave of personal victory for only so long before someone comes along and tries to destroy your dreams. It isn't surprising that from the beginning, there were those who didn't like the idea of a person with no legs competing against those who had two. Besides, Pistorious had "Cheetahs". Let's have a closer look at Pistorious's unfair advantage: his artificial limbs are j-shaped carbon fibre prosthetics called Cheetahs. Turns out they are a bit on the long side, thus enabling him to cover more ground in each stride. And it goes without saying that there would be no fatigue in the lower leg and foot muscles, no lactic acid build-up that slows down ordinary athletes.
In June 2007, the IAAF amended its competition rules to include a ban on the use of "any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other element that provides a user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device".
It claimed that the amendment was not specifically aimed at Pistorious. No, it was aimed at the preponderance of potential Olympian sprinters with prosthetic legs.

Pistorious and his coach had countered with the complaint that he faces such disadvantages as rain which inhibits traction, or wind which blows the devices sideways. To no avail.
It became official on January 14, 2008, when the IAAF ruled that Pistorious's limbs were "technical aids in clear contravention of IAAF Rule 144.2" Bad things, then something good, and back to the bad again, see what I mean?

Whadda ya do? If you don't let him run, you are crushing his Olympic dream, and you are in the uncomfortable position of attacking a disabled person. If you do let him run, you're pissing off all the other competitors who endure that lactic acid buildup.

I think as soon as you start making exceptions, you are messing with the Spartans' stringent standards. The original meaning of "Higher, Stronger, Faster" is obliterated.

In my opinion, Pistorious shouldn't be allowed to run.

Then again, the CBC is covering the whole Olympics -- that's something that shouldn't happen either, for that is an outfit more handicapped than any athlete. Indeed, whaddya do?

Hillary: the Fairer Sex

It started out as a comment about her nicely coifed hair. Hillary and about 16 undecided female voters were sitting around a table at Cafe Espresso in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. All nice and folksy like.
The stone face cracked.
Who would've known it would happen like this, with a question about grooming?
After years of being a hard-nosed, ballsy tough decision-maker with a seemingly abundant presence of leadership potential, suddenly it was time to cry like a girl. Yes, Hillary got all choked up and said, "This is very personal for me. It's not just political, it's not just public." The voice broke, the eyes welled up with tears.
Was the question a plant? Was the response orchestrated? Who knows?
But it seems to have worked. Hillary's success in New Hampshire boiled down to breasts, and those who had 'em got out there to support the newer, softer Hillary.
Even in the harshest of times, Hillary was strong. Following one of Bill's indiscretions, she showed her toughness by saying she wasn't some little woman standing by her man, but that she was there because she loved and respected him.
I wonder how much she respected the dollup of Bill's sperm on Monica's dress?
At Cafe Espresso, she went on to say, "I see what's happening and we have to reverse it. . . some of us are right and some of us are wrong, some of us are ready and some of us are not." It's too bad she wasn't more specific, for I would like to know whom she considered right or wrong, ready or ill-prepared, and was it a statement of fact or an outburst that could not be substantiated?
Perhaps she won New Hampshire because she showed her emotional side. What if the tears don't work again, then what? Well, I guess there's sobbing, or a lower lip quiver, what other things does the fairer sex do? Yes, Hillary finally let us see it because it was expedient to do so -- she is a member of the fairer sex!
I think she might want to abandon that strategy though. For if she allows her emotional side to take over, and eventually wins the race, how are Americans to gain by having a President who chokes up at a round table with world leaders and cries that no one understands her?

Cat in the Microwave

It was an act of doting love. You know -- that lady who shampooed her french poodle and wanted to fluff it up ever so nicely, so she put it in the microwave. Poof! Dog gone.
Of course, this is just an urban legend; who in hell would ever deliberately put a pet in a microwave anyway??
Turns out some kids in Camrose would, and did. Broke into a house, vandalized it, stole some things, and before they left, felt it necessary to put the family pet cat into the microwave oven.
Now, as much as I find such an act vile and horrific, I take exception to the animal rights folks who are speaking up about it.
I am convinced that kids who deliberately harm animals have serious psychological issues, and given our society's seeming inability to deal with such things, these kids will likely grow up to be perverts or violent offenders who do little good and lots of harm, costing us taxpayers millions.
That said, I have issues with the SPCA activist who exclaimed indignantly that this was animal abuse, and that the poor cat must have suffered horribly.
Prolonged cases of animal abuse are always heartbreaking. Starving them, beating them or neglecting them over weeks and months. Mercifully, this cat was loved and treated well by its owners, never knowing abuse until the very end. Grabbing a pet and shoving it into a deadly cubicle constitutes abuse, but in no way approaches the sad and horrific lives of some poor creatures. Of course this doesn't make it right.
How long the cat was in the microwave remains unknown to the general public. Perhaps he got dizzy as he rode the turntable, but given the nature and purpose of microwaves, his suffering would have been brief. Awful, but brief. Someone should tell that to the emotionally scarred, sobbing animal lover I saw on TV.
The indignance of these activists smacks of opportunism. Jumping on a soapbox and pounding their fists in the name of defending helpless animals is insincere and helps no one. Yes it was wrong. But to pontificate at length about the abuse and the horrific suffering, and say that the laws aren't strict enough for pet killers? If we spend all our time thinking about how the cat must have looked in the microwave when it was discovered, we miss the point. Accountability. Responsibility.
While these activists are insisting on tougher laws for animal abusers, teens who kill other teens are out on bail or given conditional sentences or probation. Defenders of the Youth Justice system are currently upset that the names of two teens who savagely knifed another Toronto teen, are being revealed on Facebook.
I think the names of the cat killers should be revealed, too. It won't bring the cat back, but it would force the perpetrators to take some ownership, wouldn't it?
What are we trying to do in keeping secret the names of criminals under the age of 18? Like we don't want them to get embarrassed? Well, yes, we do. That, and more.

Lottery Ads

Another annoying ad! I know, the majority of them are annoying, but isn't there always one that insults our intelligence just a little bit too much?
I speak of the Lottery ads, the ones which depict winners. The frame with the flying pig is too stupid to merit a comment, so I shall refrain, except to say that the guy who supposedly scratches the winning numbers is totally unconvincing in his joy. Fake exuberance -- the worst kind! No matter how much he laughs, it just doesn't do it for me. And there's that other one, you know, the business meeting where someone comes in to say "the numbers are right" and they look so concerned, then burst into peals of laughter. "We won! We won!" Face it, no one except a real winner can react convincingly. We all know they're just acting; if they were real winners they wouldn't be wasting time playing some two-bit part in a lottery ad campaign.
So there you go, you lottery advertisers. Show me the real winners, or show me what I can win, but don't show me pretend winners.

What's a Hero?

Heard it on the news today: some six year old kid found his grandma lying unconscious on the floor, so he called 911. Turns out she's diabetic and her insulin levels were way low. It's nice the kid called 911, but now they're talking about a citation, and giving him an award for heroism.
Is he really a hero?
An Aussie soldier in Afghanistan was cleaning his gun, and he shot himself. True, he died of head injuries after a shooting accident, but he wasn't a sniper on a war mission, so they must have felt a little weird when the flags were flying at half staff, assuming that's an honour reserved for heroes.
There are more examples I'm sure, but this is sufficient to make my point.
Now, if the kid had dragged his grandmother down several flights of stairs, encountered scary wild animals along the way, or if he had to endure blazing guns or fire, he could deserve the title "hero". But all he did was what anyone else would do. In fact, didn't a dog once press those numbers to get help for his unconscious master? or bark, or something?
As for the soldier, well there was more ineptitude there than patriotism or courage, so you can't really call him a hero.
There's an old saying, "Too much of anything spoils it." Do you think, if we keep handing out awards and calling people heroes when it's not warranted, that soon the real heroes will just get a mediocre response, an only mildly enthusiastic "hooray for you"?
If someone is a hero, then let's honour them. But if they just did something anyone else would have done in the same situation, and there are no hurricanes or fires or wild animals involved, then let's save the awards for those who are truly deserving.