Porn Ban in South Africa

Deputy Minister of Home Affairs Malusi Gigaba has proposed a ban on inappropriate websites and television programs. He proposes that the ban, covering TV but also mobile phones and the web, could be implemented in the form of filters set by Internet service providers. Countries such as Australia and China have already developed filters to block access to certain websites, however Internet security experts have dismissed the idea as "madness". Gigaba's rebuttal was "Cars are already provided with brakes and seat belts... There is no reason why the Internet should be provided without the necessary restrictive mechanisms built into it." Many people in South Africa are against this ban. Craham Cluley of security firm Sophos said "Although their intentions may be honourable, it's barking mad to think you will be able to completely outlaw pornography from the web which, is after all, the modern equivalent of the wild west." Pornography is a big topic of debate in South Africa and no one knows where this proposed ban will take the country.

I agree with what Sophos has said about the Pornography ban in South America. No matter how hard the government tries to ban pornography, people will always find ways around the ban. There is no point in wasting millions of dollars trying to filter something that is unstoppable. It is like a country trying to ban alcohol or cigarettes. As honourable as their intentions may be, it's just impossible to accomplish. I believe it is up to the parents or guardians to censor their children from pornography. The parents control what the child sees and watches on television and the government should not intervene with that. Furthermore, trying to restrict pornography would be against what the public wants. If the government were to make this bill into a law, the citizens of South Africa would be dissappointed, perhaps even angry at their decision. Pornography on the Internet is something the government just can't control. It is up to the parents and educators of South America to teach the children the rights and wrongs of the Internet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10180937.stm

The Gambler Of North Korea

After a painstaking investigation, South Korea has blamed North Korea for the sinking of its warship, the Cheonan, on March 26. Ever since Kim Jong Il, the leader of North Korea, became ill, North Korea has become increasingly bold. In the past, top North Korean leaders tended to calculate the costs and benefits carefully when they acted to put pressure on the outside world. Recently however, they launched various missiles and conducted another nuclear test, all in a few weeks. Why the sudden boldness? The North Koreans seem to believe that possession of nuclear weapons provides them with far wider room for strategic and tactical boldness. Canada, the United States, Japan, South Korea, and Russia are focusing on the denuclearizing of North Korea, but they still want North Korea to open up and allow social reform. The Allied countries believe North Korea should open up to the world and forget about the possibility of a nuclear war, for the benefit of not only themselves, but the everyone.

I believe Canada, the United States, Japan, South Korea, and Russia should denuclearize North Korea immediately. After the threat is removed, they can focus on attempting to convince North Korea into a opening up to the world. It will be incredibly difficult because North Korea is a communist country, meaning the people don't have much say in the countries decisions. Truthfully, the world has been trying to help North Korea for years, but they are too stubborn to accept help. If they didn't want to accept social and economic aid before, why would they accept it now? North Korea has made up its mind to be an independent country that is against the world. If the world can't change North Korea's opinion about itself and everyone else, war is going to be inevitable, with or without the use of nuclear warheads.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/814182--the-gambler-of-north-korea#comments

Over the next few weeks more than half a million students will graduate from American colleges, the vast majority with at least four years of campus life behind them. Indeed, the assumption that it takes four years to get an undergraduate education, but this assumption needs to change.
The college experience may be idyllic but it’s also wasteful and expensive, both for students and institutions. There is no reason undergraduates cannot be completed in three years, and plenty reasons why it should. The decrease in time to obtain an undergraduate would decrease the amount of money. All universities have to do is hire a few more professors. The save in money would not be the only benefit. Students would be able to enter the working forces earlier than before, hopefully boosting the countries economy.

Though I do believe it will be a good way of saving money, I think students need that extra year of university or college. University is not just about education, it's about teaching the student what to expect once they leave. High school is 4 years long because that's how long it takes to prepare students for university life. Some students aren't even ready after that, and take another year to prepare themselves. It is the same for university. The young adults who are thrust upon the world so suddenly will not be prepared. The life lessons the students learn in university, such as dedication, preparation, organization, etc, will not be obtained easily outside the campus. It is difficult for students to grasp these concepts on their own. They need the uni verities guidance. Though shortening the time to achieve a undergraduate would reduce costs, it could drastically effect the students leaving the university or college. They would be unprepared.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/opinion/25Trachtenberg.html?ref=opinion

An Arsenal We Can All Live With

The Pentagon has now told the public, for the first time, precisely how many nuclear weapons the United States has in its arsenal: 5,113. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the Senate to advocate approval for a "New Start" treaty. The treaty's ceiling of 1550 warheads deployed on 700 missiles and warheads will leave the United States with fewer warheads since John F. Kennedy was president. Yet, many people believe the United States can reduce their warheads even more. Maxwell Air Force Base calculated that America could reduce it's nuclear warheads to 311, without sacrificing security. 311 nuclear warheads would provide 1900 megatons of explosive power. Considering America has no real threats since the Soviet Union, limiting their nuclear warheads sounds logical.
America needs a nuclear arsenal. But they certainly don’t need one that is as big, expensive and unnecessarily threatening to much of the world as the one they have now.

I believe that the idea Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton proposed are good, however, they are not reducing the amount of nuclear warheads enough. I agree with what the Maxwell Air Force Base has to say. If America can reduce the amount of warheads without jeopardizing the nations security, what is there to lose? Why can't the American government remove something that is costing billions of dollars when it is of no use to Ameria? Personally, I believe it is because it represents their power. The more nuclear warheads America has, the more powerful they feel. But they must realize that having so many nuclear warheads is useless. If they only need 311 to maintain their security and power, why keep 1550? It seems that their insecurity for power is causing them to waste money and time on something that can now be considered useless.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24schaub.html

Slow Down And Get Retirement Home Laws Right

The legislative committee reviewing the Ontario government’s Retirement Homes Act is moving at top speed. Last week, it completed its public hearings in a single day. This week, it expects to wrap up its clause-by-clause review. Gerry Phillips, the minister responsible for seniors, would like to see the bill become law before the House rises for the summer next month. Everyone seems to agree with this pace, except for the people these laws were made for. “We support the idea of regulation, but this is not the way to do it,” said Gerda Kaegi of Canadian Pensioners Concerned. Gerda Kaegi wanted to speak to the committee, but couldn’t accommodate the 10-minute time slot she was assigned. With the speed the committee is moving at, it seems they don't care much for the senior laws in Canada.

I believe the government does care for the seniors of Canada, they just need to slow down the pace. Seniors and retirement homes is more important than one would think, and the government has not put enough thought into making this bill a law. They wish the bill to be in place before the home is even built. They need to make sure this is what seniors really want, not just current seniors. These are important issues. It wouldn’t hurt to slow down, address seniors’ concerns and ensure the Retirement Homes Act is a genuine step forward.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/810321--goar-slow-down-and-get-retirement-homes-law-right

Quebec Highway Safety Questioned

Quebec coroner says a stretch of highway east of Montreal, where three cyclists were killed and three others were injured, is dangerous because it does not have a paved shoulder. The six cyclists, all from Montreal's South Shore suburbs, were training for a triathlon along Highway 112 when they were struck from behind by a pickup truck. Coroner André Dandavino, who is investigating the accident, said the four-lane road needs to have a paved shoulder so that cyclists can be safe. In fact, under Quebec highway rules, and road travelled by more than 5000 vehicles daily must have paved shoulders. Why then, were there no paved shoulders on Highway 112? Dandavino says it's because many of Quebec's roads have been neglected in the past 20 years.

I believe this story easily shows the ignorance of some people. How could someone driving a pick-up truck not see 6 bikers in a single file line? At first, I believed it to be from alcohol, however, police have proved that alcohol was not present in the driver at the time of the incident. It was human error. Also, if that highway was known to have no paved shoulders, why would the 6 bikers take the risk? The club they came from, the Saint-Lambert Triathlon Club, was aware of the dangers of that highway. It was the decision of the riders to take the risk. I don't know who to blame in this incident, though I believe it is still mainly the drivers fault. The government should take more care of those highways so that incidents like this become rare and unheard of.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/05/15/mon-cycling-accident.html

Harper Shows Anti-Gay Side

Toronto’s annual gay pride festival is a major event, attracting an estimated 300,000 tourists to the city and ploughing $136 million into the local economy. Last year, it was deemed worthy of a $397,500 grant from Ottawa under its “marquee events” stimulus program. This year, it will get nothing. Pride’s organizers blame “some kind of homophobia” in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Ottawa. Toronto Councillor Kyle Rae calls it a “discriminatory, Neanderthal government.” The federal Liberals say it is a “reckless, ideological cut." The government vehemently denies all this. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” said Industry Minister Tony Clement in the Commons on Monday. “This is a two-year stimulus program. In year one of this program, almost 75 per cent of the funding went to events in Canada's largest cities. In year two, we wanted to ensure that the money was spread out to some of the smaller cities so they were able to benefit as well.”

It is difficult to determine which statement is false and which is true; however, the Conservative parties views do reflect this choice well. Conservatives are not the greatest supporters of homosexual couples, so it would not be surprising if Stephen Harper did have "some kind of homophobia" That being said, it is not fair to immediately blame "homophobia in office" as the reason the Gay Pride Festival did not receive any payment. Perhaps what Clement says is correct, that they wish to spread money out to smaller cities around Canada. This would not be the first time Canadians have over suspected a political topic. Either way, I believe completely removing the funding from the Gay Pride Festival is unfair. It attracts tourists and money, both attributing to the economy. It's funding is quite minuscule compared to the amount it grosses as an event.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/807480--harper-shows-anti-gay-side

Fix Aboriginal Schools

The aboriginal schools in Canada are appalling. If an aboriginal girl attends school off-reserve, Ottawa reimburses the Ontario government for the $12,000 that it costs to educate her in a provincial classroom. But if that same student goes to school on her own reserve, the federal government budgets barely half that amount for her education. The standards at aboriginal schools are much lower than Ontario schools. 60 per cent of First Nations students in reserve schools drop out; for non-aboriginals, the rate is 9.5 per cent. Paul Martin, former Prime Minister, argued that it's not just gaps in funding that paralyze aboriginal schools. The teachers at aboriginal schools do not have the best practices to teach their students. Martin's family is bridging those gaps by sharing the schools best practices. Canada’s aboriginal youth cannot wait much longer for a coherent federal focus on education, backed by serious funding.

I believe it is unfair how the aboriginals in Canada have been treated ever since we took over their homeland. They were rejected ordinary human rights when Canadians invaded their land and now, not enough has improved. This is clearly shown by how the Canadian government supplies the First Nation schools. The lack of funding and school techniques clearly shows that Canada does not care enough for it's aboriginal population. I believe we need to repay the First Nations for all the suffering we put them through. If we cannot even offer them a proper education, we cannot come to terms with the ghosts of our past.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/802642--fix-aboriginal-schools

Locking Down "Loose" Nukes

The threat of nuclear terrorism since 9/11 has prompted U.S. President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other leaders to meet in Washington this week to step up efforts to safeguard the 1,600 tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and 500 tons of plutonium stored at 2,000 sites in 40 countries. Canada's Stephen Harper intends to to ship our storage's of HEU to the U.S, where it cannot be used for weapons. This is a good move considering it takes just 50 kg. of HEU to build a crude nuclear bomb. And only a few grams of material are needed to build a conventional "dirty" bomb designed to spread radioactivity. Though restricting the world's "loose" materials is a difficult task, Obama is right to try. Nuclear terrorism is a real threat. After 9/11, the United Nations ordered the world to do better, but they are not doing enough. It is good that these few countries are taking initiative towards restricting nuclear warfare.

I believe it is correct to restrict the HEU supplies from the countries that would otherwise use it for war. The stats stated above indeed show the danger of releasing even minuscule amounts HEU. Though I do believe we should restrict the HEU supplies, I don't believe it is correct for Canada to trust the United States with its supply of HEU. Mainly because it is much more difficult for an enemy country to find supplies of HEU if they were scattered. If they were all situated in USA, the task of retrieving the HEU would be simpler. Also, let us not forget that the United States is the only country to have used the atomic bomb in warfare; not only once in fact, but twice. Can our supply of nuclear weapons be trusted with the United States? I would hope so; however, only time will tell.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/794237--locking-down-loose-nukes

Restricting Illegal Drugs

Based on a 2009 drug use survey by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, it is estimated that more than 60,000 Ontario students, in Grades 7 through 12, smoke contraband tobacco. The main reason is price. Purchased from convenience stores willing to break the law or even street dealers selling from car trunks, 200 illicit cigarettes generally cost about $15. The price for the same number of legal cigarettes is $50 to $55. Studies have shown that high prices pose an effective barrier between kids and tobacco use. Easily available black market cigarettes have lowered that barrier in Ontario. The consequences to young people and society at large – could hardly be more serious. Most smokers start before they turn 20. Those unable to kick the habit face highly elevated rates of lung cancer and heart disease. To fix this problem, the Government is paying more funding towards the police department to better restrict illicit cigarettes.

Though I do believe this is a good idea, I don't think it will be a successful campaign. Stores that sell cigarettes check for ID, whereas illegal dealers are only in for the profit. If the government could truly remove all illegal dealers, the problem would be solved. This, however, is only a false hope. Similar campaigns to eliminate illegal cigarettes have ended unsuccessfully. There will always be illegal activity in community; it cannot be stopped completely. You cannot expect the police to find every single dealer in the province, and even if this were possible, they would soon be replaced other illegal dealers. I don't believe banning cigarettes all together would work either, because people will always find a way to go around the law. Illegal cigarettes presents itself as a major problem in Canada's youth, with seemingly no possible solutions.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/726168--illegal-cigarettes-can-t-be-ignored

Pardons More Transparent

An 18 year old convicted for a shoplifting offence should not have to wear that record like a scarlet letter for the rest of his or her life, whether seeking employment or travelling abroad. Even in the case of more serious crimes, such as a sexual assault conviction, the perpetrators should have access to pardons, providing they demonstrate that they are back on the right path. But, they should not be given the pardon granted automatically, as they apparently are now. After a period of time, the police should check that there have been no subsequent offenses. The request is then made in writing, and the National Parole Board rubber-stamps it. Only a tiny percentage of requests are turned down. The law does not differentiate between minor or major offenses, besides the wait time of 3 or 5 years after the sentence. The application process is the same for both, largely a paper transaction read by officials behind closed doors.

I understand that people who have been convicted of minor offenses wish to be freed from the record so they can live ordinary lives. I believe they deserve this opportunity to redeem themselves for the mistakes they have made. If they can show they have learned their lesson and that they will willingly abide by the law, they should be freed of that burden. When it comes to major offenses such as murder, robbery, or assault, I do not believe the convicted should have such an easy way to remove such a serious crime off their record. If they have ruined or ended somebodies life, why should their procedure for pardon be as easy as someones who had just made a simple mistake? The difference of murdering someone and spraying graffiti on a wall is monumental. The murderer should have to bear that burden until he has proved that he has changed. He should not just submit a document pleading his innocence with the chance of the officials approval.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/791260--make-pardons-more-transparent

To Burn or To Dump?

Durham region's planned garbage incinerator has three things going for it: the region's medical officer has given it the green light, it meets provincial environmental regulations; and modern incinerators of this type, which turn waste into energy, are safely used across Europe. However, critics of incineration argue that the better option is to produce less waste and reuse/recycle more. Unfortunately, we need a place to put items that cannot be recycled. We could either incinerate the remaining garbage, or put them in landfills. Nobody wishes to have any more landfills, so at the moment, incinerators are our only option. Also, a well run, modern incinerator meets all of our health, environmental, and safety standards. Whether they decide to build a landfill or build an incinerator, there will always be critics. But pledging to boost recycling and dispose of what remains is taking the right route.

I believe the incinerator is a fine idea. If it meets Canadian environmental, health, and safety standard then why not build an incinerator? It gets rid of waste much more efficiently than a landfill. Also, the incinerator burns waste to create energy. This is much more efficient than burying waste that will become a problem in the future. Waste cannot decompose fast enough in land fills. The best option however, is to still recycle one's goods. This is the most environmentally friendly way to use waste. We cannot recycle everything however. Objects and possessions will eventually be thrown out. This, hopefully, is when the incinerators will be used. The burning of waste will still create carbon dioxide and ash however, which will pollute the earth. However, in comparison with landfills, burning waste to create energy is much more efficient than burying our waste under our feet.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/790598--to-burn-or-to-dump

Minumum Wage Stalled

Ontario's general minimum wage has been raised to $10.25 an hour on Wednesday, March 31st, 2010. This is an incredible leap from the older $6.85 minimum wage, which was frozen in place for nearly a decade. Even with this massive leap, a minimum wage job will not lift a full time worker above the poverty line. Are more increases expected? Unfortunately, last weeks provincial budget did not answer this question. Ontario cannot afford to fall behind again on minimum wages. The size and time of the next increase is something for debate. Besides a decent wage, the working poor also need full-time jobs, affordable housing, and subsidized child care. Ultimately, they need more opportunities to move beyond minimum wage jobs into employment that can support a better standard of living.

I believe that raising the minimum wage for Canadians is a good first step out of poverty. However, we cannot expect to keep raising how much people are paid if they do not work for themselves to get hired. Many people nowadays do not wish to work for payment. The rely on government funding and the charity of others to get them through the day. I believe that just as important as raising the minimum wage, the government should make getting a job seem more appealing. If the minimum wage is increased, but the eagerness to get a job is not, will this really accomplish anything? The government needs to get workers into jobs before raising how much money they earn. Only then can the poverty in Canada be dealt with.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/787848--minimum-wage-stalled

Australian Internet Filter Plan Worries U.S.

The United States of America is worried about Australia's strict Internet filter that would place limitations on web content, which was put into place on Monday, March 29th. These policies have made Australia one of the strictest Internet regulators among the world's democracies. US State Department Spokesman Michael Tran says: "We have raised our concerns on this matter with Australian Officials" Internet giants Google and Yahoo have condemned the proposal as a heavy-handed measure that could restrict access to legal information. The Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says the filter will be used to help the public, blocking access to child pornography sites, sexual violence sites, and sites that contain detailed instructions in crime or drug use. The new filter program will be updated constantly based on public complaints. Some critics even, have put Australia in the same censorship league as China.

I do believe that Australia's Internet filter is a little too strict on it's citizens. However, I don't think America has any business in Australia's affairs. They've raised their concerns to Australian officials and now it's time for them to back off. I believe the Australian population is the main decider in this debate. If they do not support this potential "law" then it will not be put into effect. Even if it is put into effect, the citizens can vote off the current government. Also, these websites do not pose a threat to the Australian government. Why ban something that is not a threat? This, I believe, is why some critics put Australia in the same censorship league as China. Still, the question remains: has Australia become so worried about it's citizens as to limit what they can view on the World Wide Web? This remains an unanswered question for the time being.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/03/29/tech-australia-internet-filter.html

Politicians Drop The Daycare Ball

Our municipal, provincial, and federal governments are shying away from a much-needed expansion of our child care sector. What's worse, all three levels of government wish to adopt budgets in the coming weeks that actually cut subsidized child-care spaces, lay off workers and drive up costs for full-fee parents. This would cause many parents to quit their jobs in order to find time for their children. In Toronto's proposed budget, the government strips 6 million of funding from 370 school based day cares. Experts predict that this will raise pricing for child care from an average $60 to $80. Furthermore, thousands of health care services and jobs are at risk of disappearing unless the government allocates $63.5 million for Ontario. In Ottawa, the Conservatives have shown nothing but disdain for child care and the bad effects it will have on families and the economy. However, child care delivers both social and economic benefits. Our governments need to ensure the required funding is not stripped from their budgets in a short-sighted deficit-fighting move.

I don't completely agree with this article in the sense that taxpayers should not be paying for other people's children. If one wishes to have a child, one should be emotionally and financially stable. They should not rely on other peoples labour in order to support their family. Also, the daycare system nowadays is quite impressive already. Many services don't require any money for services during the morning and afternoon. Fees are only required for extra added hours which means parents can work without fear of leaving their children at home. This, for me, introduces another problem. Parents should spend more time with their children at a younger age. They should not be sending them to day cares for 5 days of the week. Sooner or later, the child will be calling their teacher "baba" or "mama". More money towards childcare would be a leap in the wrong direction. Parents should work for their own families welfare, and have the time and decency to stay with their kids.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/773064--politicians-drop-the-daycare-ball

Massive Police Budget

Harvey Simmons speaks out for the candidates of Mayor that remain silent. He notices that the candidates were afraid to mention the gross budget for the Toronto police. The Toronto police budget stands at nearly 1 billion per year. This means the police consume more of Toronto's operating budget than the fire service, Emergency Medical Service, and public health combined. What's worse, when Torontonians complain about another rise in taxes, more than 24% of that goes to the police. More than the TTC, public health, children's services, and Emergency Medical Services combined as listed above. The police enjoy enormous popularity with the public, they have powerful and combative union behind them. However, no relation between numbers of police officers, police expenditures, and crime rate. No matter what the police may say, or the public believe, studies have proven that crime rate is because of the economy, wages, and the change in the market for illegal drugs. This means that the 1 billion dollars on the police is merely a waste of the taxpayers money and an excuse for the Toronto police to live a life of luxury.

Though I do believe our "protection" as citizens is important, the gross overpayment of the Toronto police officers is unacceptable and should be changed. The police are important, but the budget should not outmatch fire services, Emergency Medical Services, public health, TTC, and children services combined. Also, the public cannot believe everything the media and police have to say. If proven statistics say that more policemen and better equipment will not reduce the crime rate in Toronto, then why continue to supply the police department with such gross over payments of funding? This wasted money on firearms and equipment could be used for better transport services, better public health care, better childcare, etc. yet the government continues to pour money into the police departments coffers. Police funding is obviously necessary, however, there is no point in supplying the police with a billion dollars if it will go to waste anyway. The money should be used on more productive elements.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/771685--now-is-the-time-to-discuss-city-s-massive-police-budget

Where's The Money For Schools?

Since the Canadian government decided to kick start the economy last year with the Economic Action Plan, the federal government has committed 9 billion to funding more than 6,700 provincial, territorial, and municipal projects. In Ontario, they are funding many "worthy" projects. Toronto police division will get 17.1 million, Horse Palace will get 1.4 million, and the Royal Ontario Museum will get 5.25 million. Toronto public schools will receive nothing because school boards do not meet federal eligibility criteria. An appalling 425 million is given to colleges and universities in just Toronto. The 240,000 students in the Toronto District Board will receive nothing from KIA funding. Learning for students does not begin when they enter university or college. It begins much earlier, in the classrooms, science labs, and libraries of our public schools. Bruce Davis believes that it is time to send Canadian leaders back to school. He believes there is a lesson that they need to learn.

I believe Bruce Davis's statements are correct, however, he may be overreacting at the seriousness of this problem. Though it is true that Ontario public schools did not receive any of the 9 billion in 2009, they did receive 5 billion from the federal government in 2005. Ontario public schools do need funding, but not the the extent that everything should be renewed at a yearly basis. In fact, when it comes to math and science, Ontario's high school student rank among the best in the world, surpassed only by Finland and Singapore. I do not believe we could have achieved this with old and faulty equipment. Also, I believe universities require the government support more than public schools in Toronto. Universities are areas of higher learning. This means they require "top notch" technology and the most up to date information that is available. This will make the transfer from high school to university a much richer experience. Both Canadian high schools and universities require funding; however, there is no need to assault the government with minuscule problems that seem larger than they really are.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/769795--where-s-the-money-for-schools

Toyota Saved 100M by Limiting Recall

Toyota has recalled more than 10 million vehicles worldwide and is now sending president Akio Toyoda to testify before the United States Congress. Toyota executive boasted of the company saving $100 million by negotiating a limited recall for Toyota Camry and Lexus ES cars over a problem that could cause unintended acceleration. Toyota called an equipment recall to repair an "accessory" on non important part of the vehicle. However a month after the announcement of the recall, a family of four was killed in a Lexus with it's gas pedal stuck under a floor mat. NBC News criticizes how a "win" for Toyota means reduced safety for American motorists. However, Toyota is careful to get out of any further conflict. "Our first priority is the safety of our customers and to conclude otherwise on the basis of one internal presentation is wrong. Our values have always been to put the customer first and ensure the highest levels of safety and quality." They hope that this will shield the fact they wished to secure $100 million. Other examples of missing safety procedures to save money are phasing in new safety regulations for side air bags saved the company 124 million and 50,000 man hours. Delaying tougher locks saved them 11 million. It seems Toyota is more concerned about their financial standing than the safety of it's customers.

It seems that Toyota's bragging of saving money, but reducing safety measures has gotten many professionals irritated and irate. I believe they have the full reason to feel this way. Toyota should not care more about how much money they can save if it reduces safety in their cars. Toyota believes that gaining financially is more important than public safety and well being. They procrastinated and removed many safety features in order to save money and man hours of their workers. This seems, to me, unfair and selfish of the company. It seems they care more about themselves than others, which will only ruin their reputation as the top car manufacturer in the world. Also, the many fatal errors in Toyota's manufacturing may bring up lawsuits by their customers. If great enough, the money they saved from removing safety precautions could be replaced by debt from mass lawsuits. Is saving 100 million dollars really worth possible lawsuits, the death of innocent citizens, and a debilitating reputation? I personally, believe not.

http://www.thestar.com/wheels/article/769481--toyota-saved-100m-by-limiting-recall-report

Words Matter, In English And French

Unity in diversity: isn't this what the Canadian dream is about? This reason is why many French Canadians felt sad and frustrated at the minuscule French content during the 2010 Opening Ceremony. Many French singers were rejected from the opening ceremony because of their language. In fact, many English speaking Canadians found the absence of the French language noticeable as well. Bilingualism does not mean all Canadians should speak both languages. It is a countries unique approach to diversity. No language should try and out match the other. This will only lead to conflict. This, Andre believes, is what occurred during the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games. The English language had a much greater presence than French. Many Canadians wondered: "why spoil this moment of pride with out old quarrels?" Why? Because it is difficult for the country's 7 million francophone's to feel proud while their language is being excluded. If the French Canadians do not protest now, their language will be excluded even more in the next major event in Canada.

Canada's bilingualism was put to the test during the opening ceremonies of the 2010 Olympics. The minuscule amount of French language was clearly noticed and found disturbing by both French, and English Canadians. I believe the French expressing worry is appropriate. They are trying to protect their language and culture in a "bilingual" country. It is unfair for the government to censor the French language from the Olympic games. As Canadian citizens, the French population has the right to be treated fairly. The exclusion of their language in the 2010 Winter Games is not "fair". Also, I agree with Andre when he says "No language should try and outmatch the other" because this Opening Ceremony is a prime example of just that. The Government believed English was superior to French, thus greatly reducing the amount of French spoken in the Opening Ceremony. The French must protest now before the next major event held in Canada. The more they stay in silence about their language, the more it will be shrugged off and forgotten.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/767109--words-matter-in-english-and-french

Georgian Olympian Luger Dies After Training Crash

Just hours before the opening ceremony of the Olympics, Georgian Luger Nodar Kumaritashvili died after a horrendous training accident. He was raised in a picturesque alpine resort which leads many locals to believe that the training crash that killed Kumaritashvili was due to lack of experience. These statements especially vex Kumaritashvili's father, who was a former luge champion. He says: "First and foremost, 150 kilometers per hour is too fast for this sport. So this was unacceptable. And there should have been more safety measures at the luge -- nets, or more cushioning around the columns." The luge course was actually known from the start that it was the fastest course in the world, and therefore the most dangerous. But both boys, Kumaritashvili and his partner Levan Gureshidze, were still very eager to compete and to be successful. At the same time, sports officials have defended the integrity of the track, which has been operational for two years. In 2008, Josef Fendt, the German president of the International Luge Federation, expressed concern that sliders at Whistler were reaching speeds of 150 kilometers an hour, which he described as "worryingly high." Following Kumaritashvili's death, however, Fendt denied the track was dangerous, saying, "It's one of the fastest tracks, but we have never said it is too fast." It's an assertion that has been challenged by officials like Vakhtang Gegelia, the vice president of the Georgian National Olympic Committee. However, many people believe otherwise. They believe luge should not cause death, and GNOC's attempts to make luge more exciting has turned the sport dangerous.

This tragedy, I believe, was because of the stubbornness of GNOC to reduce speeds and increase safety precautions of the track. The knew Luger's were capable of reaching 150km, and they didn't have significant protection at the most dangerous turn of the track. This shows GNOC's inability to notice large flaws in their sporting events. Another thing I find appalling about this article is the fact that people wish to blame Kumaritashvili's accident on his own abilities. He was obviously trained well by his father, who was a former luge champion. Questioning his abilities of the sport is unfair and obviously incorrect. If he had the ability to earn a spot in the Olympics, he obviously had the skill. It was the danger of the track that cost him his life, and the GNOC needs to see that. The world lost a great Luger last Friday; and if it weren't for the stubbornness and insecurity of GNOC, this "accident" could have been avoided.

http://sports.espn.go.com/olympics/winter/2010/luge/news/story?id=4909034

When The Patient Can't Afford The Care

When Pauline W. Chen first started dealing with patients as a doctor, she noticed the appalling prices of many simple medications required to substain a healthy lifestyle. She first realized this during her training for residential surgery. She was taking care of her patient who had just had surgery on his abdomen. She noticed that the gauze had been packed more loosely and changed less frequently then instructed. When she called him in started to lecture him on the importance of dressing changes, he leaned over to interrupt. “Hey, Doc,” he said, pointing to the pile of unopened gauze. “Do you think I could have the extra? This stuff isn’t cheap.” She was appalled at how he had to cut down on gauze and dressing materials because of his income. Beforehand, she believed that being a good doctor meant knowing the clinical facts down cold. However after this incident, she realized that being a good doctor didn't just mean facts and surgeries. A doctor had to understand the current economy it's patients were living in. She decided to look into this problem farther. She noticed that most medical graduates are now taking economics and social sciences in University. A recent poll found that students who had attended the school with more of these types of courses (economics and social sciences) were significantly more satisfied with their education than students from the school with fewer. In the end, Pauline W. Chen believed understanding a patients medical needs as well as economic standing would help doctors make correct decisions on to the treatment of patients.

I believe what Dr. Pauline W. Chen has said about medical care is clearly correct. Here in Canada we do not have to worry about healthcare as it is payed for in our taxes. In America, it's a completely different story. It's every man for himself with medication, surgeries, and transplants costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. An average American citizen cannot afford to pay this sum of money for something that should be free. Why must something so abundant and important be sold at a price in which normal people cannot afford? If it is essential to one's life then why even put a price on it? Has the government become so selfish that they cannot save millions of lives through cheat and efficient healthcare? Dr. Pauline W. Chen believes doctors can make a difference to the patient's bill through learning about the economy in University. However, I believe it is mainly in the government's power to control this problem. If the citizens cannot trust the government enough to provide beneficial healthcare; what possibly could the citizens trust the government on? If the government does not realize this flaw in society, medical standards and admiration may begin to decline.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/health/04chen.html

Case Stokes Haiti’s Fear for Children, and Itself

As Haiti’s crippled government asserted itself in the name of defending the nation’s children, officials made it clear that more was at stake. In the wake of the worst natural disaster in Haiti’s history, the authorities have opened the country to a flood of international assistance, some of it coming uncomfortably close to infringing on national sovereignty. The 10 Americans, the authorities said, had crossed the line. Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive angrily denounced them as “kidnappers” who “knew what they were doing was wrong.” The Americans, most of whom are affiliated with two Baptist churches in Idaho, said they were trying to rescue orphans from the earthquake and take them to an orphanage they were setting up in the Dominican Republic. But that noble intent came under scrutiny on Monday as questions were raised about whether all of the children were indeed orphans. An 8 year child told workers "I am not an orphan." She said that her mother had just arranged a short vacation for her. Fearful of the possibility that unscrupulous traffickers would take advantage of Haiti’s sundered justice system to take children from poor families for illegal adoptions, prostitution or slavery, the government had halted all adoptions except those already in motion before the earthquake. Mr. Bellerive’s signature is now required for the departure of any child.

While I feel that their hearts are in the correct place I believe that this is a great example of self delusional arrogance. If you go to a country that has bad living conditions you cannot simply take children across international borders because you feel that you are doing the right thing. Though they're eventual goal was bright, the volunteers went about it the wrong way. Taking children and taking them out of the country is not the right answer. Before anything was done with the children, they should have checked with the authorities and government officials. They broke Haiti laws for what seemed like personal gain. Though they may have been trying to help secure a better future for these children, they are only causing more and more problems for the troubled country of Haiti.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/world/americas/02orphans.html

Iraq War Illegal

One of Britain's top legal advisors believes that the military action of invading Iraq was illegal. Michael Wood was Britain's most senior advisor at Britain's Foreign Office until 2006. “I considered that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law," Wood stated in a written inquiry. He believes that the unessesary force was not authorized by the Security Council, and had no other legal bases that could lead to war. In the weeks coming running up to the March 2003 invasion, U.S Officials tried to persuade the U.N Security Council, however, the negotiations failed. Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, told parliament three days before the invasion that a combination of previous U.N. resolutions made the action lawful. Wood told the inquiry on Tuesday that he had consistently advised that regime change was not a legal basis for war, and action required a specific U.N. mandate, which was absent in the resolution.

I have never supported the War in Iraq and I believe Michael Wood's claim is completely acceptable and correct. Wood says that the invasion of Iraq was not authorized by the United Nations Security Council and obviously has the adequate proof that the invasion of Iraq was against the United Nations better interests. The United States should not have invaded Iraq if the negotiations had failed. Though they did recieve the green light from Peter Goldsmith, they should have confirmed with the United Nations instead of diving head first into war. This irrational action of invading Iraq without the United Nations guaranteed approval was a irrational decision made by the American Government and has cost many innocent Americans and Iraqui their lives.