Tasers Tailored for Tasing


.
This is going to be just a quick post on a subject that for me seems like a no brainer that barely warrants any real discussion, yet to which every Canadian news show, talk show, and internet forum imaginable has devoted some time: tasers.

Here in Canada, the use of Tasers by law enforcement teams is still highly argued against and I have a hard time accepting this when no one is arguing that handguns and twelve gauge shotguns shouldn’t be standard police issue. Which one’s more lethal, a bullet or an electrical discharge?

Although, some will quickly point out that a taser is only useful at close range, I would prefer seeing our officers discharge tasers in all of the cases that qualify as such rather than have them fire a gun! Sure, there is always the slight chance that you may die from being ‘tasered,’ but is anyone going to believe that this represents a greater danger than being fired on at close range with a gun. And truth be told, once all the post-mortem dust has settled from the few taser related deaths we’ve had here in Canada, most notably that of Mr. Dziekanski, the actual chances of death from a properly handled taser prove to be infinitesimal. Plus, I can’t see any ‘collateral damage’ resulting from a ricocheted dart, can you?

And many of the arguments voiced throughout the various venues invoke the ol’ you-get-what-you-deserve or action-reaction notion i.e. if people are afraid to die from being tasered, they darn well shouldn’t put themselves in a position to be tasered.
But that’s just where the real problem lies: what is an appropriate taser-deserving situation? Because tasers represent a non-lethal and 'non-violent' (this is debatable) method to subdue a suspect, there's always the off-chance that officers will develop a dependence on this 'tool' and consequently abuse its use. And indeed, we’ve had a few examples where the protocol had apparently become: taser first, handcuff the perpetrator as he’s doing the bacon second, then eventually ask some questions… and that’s just wrong, except of course, in the rare situations that call for such behaviour, but again, how do we define these situations?

The government has revealed their new plan to re-introduce the use of tasers; only time will tell whether or not it’s efficient but I personally find it silly! The key factors mentioned are education, and allowing only officers with 3 years or more of seniority to carry the weapon... yet they are still handing guns over to rookies. The other way around seems to make way more sense to me!

I’m not against the idea of educating officers before arming them with tasers but let’s be honest, our government has a tendency to overdue things on that end and I strongly believe that a majority of the money invested towards this should be going elsewhere.
As far as I’m concerned the only education officers should require—especially once they’ve completed their firearm's course—is a link to Wikipedia, a twenty minute lecture, and some practise time with the weapon.

The really important thing to teach these officers cannot necessarily be conveyed through lengthy talks nor by studying highly-indexed and annexed manuals that have cost a fortune to produce. It’s hard to instill a sense of fear, ultimate responsibility, and impending consequences in a classroom. It took some time between officers being first handed firearms and for them to fire their guns responsibly – think back through history…

Now here is the no brainer part: while doing research for this post I came across this bit of text stating that all models (only two in Canada) approved for official use by law enforcement agencies can be equipped with small cameras. Seems clear to me! Let’s spend the money on this gadget and make sure every single taser is equipped with one of these. And if cost is an issue and the present taser manufacturers are asking too much for these, all that the government has to do is put out a call for tenders and I betcha some other company is willing to pick up the contract for a fraction of the cost…
A camera that is instantly triggered the instant the weapon is deployed, whether or not the taser is actually fired, will resolve many issues, including the lack of evidence or lengthy trials that rely on witnesses, thus saving us plenty of money otherwise squandered in our judicial system, while also acting as a reminder to the police that they are being watched and need to be accountable...

Sorry, guess it wasn’t such short post after all.

Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.

The Day the Earth Stood... A Chance


.
Last night I decided to take a break from my PC and so sat back and watched the 2008 remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still expecting to be blown away by CGI explosions and awesome apocalyptic images (yes, I like to see fictionalized destruction on a grand scale).
Unfortunately, the only good thing about the film - other than the theme - was Jennifer Connelly; is it me or is she looking increasingly better with age? Plus I have a thing for nerdy types so seeing her as an astro-biologist got the ol’ juices flowing, so to speak, despite a lack of geeky glasses and only a brief scene in which she wears a lab coat…
And you have to admit that it was a good role for Keanu Reeves – he’s got lifeless, zombie-like characters down pat!

Although the original 1951 version took place on a war-torn earth just after World War II, the film’s theme is very apropos today considering the indisputable state of affairs and the melting polar ice caps. Plus, the general idea put forth, that the only way to assure earth’s sustainability is to exterminate humans or hope that we evolve into new beings, as suggested in Arthur C. Clark's book Childhood’s End, sums up my overall feelings.

In the film, the fact that Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) was unable to speak to world leaders should not be seen as an unfortunate mistake that results in his decision to do away with human kind; let’s be totally frank: as if talking to the UN would actually change anything. Should I mention Rwanda as an example? Which inevitably leads me to the brutal death of 6 million Jews and the dozens of equally brutal genocides that have occurred since then? As a species, are we actually capable of learning a lesson from anything and hence able to undergo a vital transformation in our so called ‘nature’?

You may call me unreasonably sceptical or overly cynical or just incredibly dubious of our overall potential as humans; I call myself a realist! Sure, there are plenty of examples to suggest otherwise but they usually represent isolated cases that can be easily dwarfed by statistics and counter-examples.
And yet the signs are there, the neuroses are deep rooted and we are generally discontented as a species. We have reached a crisis point and nonetheless, the only thing that seems to be driving humankind forward can be expressed in terms of economics. And even though headway is being made on the environmental front, it has unfortunately become a hot-button issue to be financially exploited on all fronts as it feeds liberal guilt.

So, going back to the film, maybe I missed it but what actually happens to warrant a change in Klaatu’s attitude?
And here’s a bit of Hollywood silliness I just have to point out: at the end of the movie those metallic bugs buzz down and wolf down (mixed metaphor intended) entire buildings and even a stadium within seconds yet a wimpy ass cement bridge provides adequate protection for our heroes?!?

After the film’s denouement (was there a conclusion?), we can only imagine what happens next: Connelly’s character signs a multi-million dollar agreement to write a book entitled “How I saved the World” and then embarks on the talk-show circuit; conspiracy nuts convince enough people that the government or some other group was involved in all of this while a handful of business moguls fight a secret war to get their hands on a sample of that placental matter for commercial purposes, and industrialists do all they can to make off with as many ‘re-construction’ contracts as possible…
Eventually things go back the way they were, albeit with better employment opportunities.

Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.

Wool Also Comes at a Price


.
We’ve been hearing lots about the despicable practices linked to the fur industry for quite some time now and it’s always encouraging to hear that positive changes are occurring, such as PETA’s recent breakthrough to finally convince designer Donna Karan to stop using fur in all of her designs. Although Giorgio Armani (equally targeted by PETA’s latest parody Web site, done with the help of Project Runway star Tim Gunn) has not yet voiced his intentions to help bring forth a change, Donna Karan has promised that her 2009 fall line-up, as well as all other future releases, will be fur-free. Thank you Donna!

But what about wool? We’re generally left with the impression that wool is a ‘friendly’ product since we are continually sold on the idea that sheep happily relinquish their fleece since shearing is a ‘natural’ act which ‘must be done’ and so benefits all, including the lambs and sheep.

Regrettably, mass production and profitability entails an entirely different reality; the wool industry is an equally brutal and despicable business and buying wool supports a harsh cruelty towards wool bearing animals.

PETA has been investigating the industry for some time now, focusing on farms in Australia since it is the world's top wool producer. Their efforts have helped to expose this industry's horrendous hidden cruelty to animals, such as a reliance on what can only be described as a sick and barbaric practise called “mulesing,” wherein helpless lambs are forced on their backs so that chunks of skin and flesh can be “hacked from their rumps with gardening type shears.” This is done to discourage flies from laying eggs in the natural wrinkles formed by the sheep’s skin and is almost always performed without the use of anaesthetics since this would increase production costs. What’s usually not mentioned in regards to this practise is that the animals are often left with open wounds that become infested with maggots.

If that wasn’t enough, there’s more! Once the sheep are judged to produce too little wool and so to provide a low return (everything is always a ‘numbers’ game with these ‘farmers’ – it is, after all, a business ), they are considered useless and so they are inevitably sold off for their meat.
Since these lambs and sheep were not raised specifically for the meat industry, they are considered as ‘low-grade meat’ and sold ‘en masse’ to slaughterhouses in the Middle East and North Africa (which is one of the reasons why lamb and mouton meat is cheap and abundant in
most Maghreb countries).

As a result, millions of sheep are shipped off each year, tightly packed onto open-deck boats for a journey many will die from. But that’s ok; again it’s a numbers game and a ‘loss’ is expected and calculated into each shipment… But the reality is that the weaker sheep who would otherwise live on for many years often become ill – left to stand in their own excrements is no help - and they, along with the injured sheep, typically collapse and are trampled to death. Others die from exposure to the harsh elements at sea.

Those that survive the journey, arriving listless and terrified, are instantly dragged off to be slain, exsanguinated while still conscious, in rudimentary slaughterhouses.

Ironically, proponents of the wool industry describe the Australian sheep industry "as one of the most efficient and cost effective in the world" (RFID for Livestock and Animal Identification). All about numbers!!!

Is wool really worth all of that? Still not convinced or would like more info? Here are some very necessary sites advocating changes in this industry:



Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier

Images: "PETA counters False Claims" courtesy of Save the Sheep.com; "Effects of Mulesing" courtesy of www.free.org; "The Al Shuwaikh with bloody carcasses heaped at bow" and "Sheeps swimming in urine and feces" courtesy of Live Export Shame.
.

Don't Read Anything into Anything - You May Offend Close-Minded People...


.
It was recently brought to my attention that on the afternoon of Feb. 20, my last post regarding my own interpretation of the Hulu ad was the subject of an overheated debate on the television forum found on Craigslist.

Somebody emailed me a link to the first thread and I read through – I was appalled by the ignorance and lack of tolerance being displayed. That people do not agree with what I have to say is one thing, but what blows me away is that not even one of the people who apparently didn’t hesitate to trash me and call me names – all behind my back, being totally unaware of this discussion – didn’t even have the gall to post a comment or express their own opinion in regards to my analysis directly on my blog; yet they were calling me an idiot, a jerk, someone who can’t have a good laugh, a pretentious and pompous ass amongst other things I'd never dare print here. This from people who’ve never met me and who, from what I gather from my site stats, didn’t even bother reading my other posts or learning anything about me.

What’s even more appalling was the sheer number of spelling and grammatical mistakes which appeared in the various posts from the people who took pleasure in calling me belittling and offensive names!

One fellow essentially called Canadians retarded and me an idiot because I make a reference to The Simpsons in the first paragraph. According to him The Simpsons stopped being funny 12 years ago and so anyone that still watches the show "has a sense of humor that sucks” (I could make an equally stupid claim and say that people who haven't watched The Simpsons for 12 years express themselves poorly... but I won't). Although this person didn’t have the bravery to point out what is funny, Fox should no doubt cancel the show - twenty years on the air and millions of fans are no match for a truly subjective and empty comment like that one!!!

Ironically, the only counter-interpretation of the advert offered was unbelievably empty and equally subjective; it essentially went like this: it’s funny and I like it so the 'idiot' (meaning me) is reading too much into it. This actually proved to be the entire basis of one woman’s argument who called me names behind my back and accused me of “going off the deep end” yet could not provide any reason as to why when another post asked her “how [I] went off the deep end.” According to her, the whole point of the commercial was to be funny (someone else pointed out that “no, it’s to sell a product") and I was obviously deranged for seeing a “virtual conspiracy” (whatever she means by ‘virtual’ in this context, I haven’t a clue) in it. Anybody familiar with the ad (you can see it in my previous post) has to laugh at this woman – the very idea set forth by the commercial deals with an alien conspiracy to rule the world!!! Hello! She obviously didn't get what I was saying - perhaps I should write a version for her that uses nothing more than monosyllabic words...

Another person, after calling me a “pompous idiot” because s/he “skimmed” through only the first page of my blog went on to make this comment: “So no content whatsoever is acceptable to him if it deviates the slightest bit from whatever PC mores he has cluttering up his damaged brain?” Not only is this person being totally judgemental and infantile, it is very obvious from his/her statement that s/he has no clue what mores are, and even more obvious that s/he also didn’t understand my interpretation of this ad. Further, I don’t see how s/he arrives at such a conclusion; if this person knew anything about me s/he would know that quite the opposite is true! However, I don’t just blindly ‘absorb’ everything thrown at me – I love to analyse and look behind the obvious meanings; I have an avid passion for literature and linguistics and having studied these fields for many years I have developed strong critical & analytical skills. Whether I'm wrong or right is up for debate, and I always do enjoy a good critical debate from which I can learn - but for me empty put downs and belligerent remarks that don't present valid arguments demonstrates a lack of intelligence.

So in the end, despite the brutal comments that were posted, no one - and I do mean no one - even put forward a concrete, empirically based counter-argument! All just empty opinions being passed off as professional judgements deemed to be better than my own. I wouldn’t even dare make such a claim of superiority; my Hulu post didn’t even dare make that claim, so who the f*** are these people?

And allow me to ask this: why else do ad companies hire psychologists and sociologists and a whole bunch of other specialists and hold panels and discussion groups and so forth before actually releasing an ad campaign? Apparently all they need is one good comedian…

Unfortunately, I don’t think the fellow arguing in my defence on the forum did much to improve my position; although I (obviously) agree with him, I have to admit that he did present his arguments in a fairly antagonizing way. But then I suppose it’s easy to get riled up in the face of such counter-productive idiocy…

Is it that whenever people feel challenged or when their own views are challenged, they become aggressive?
And why am I not in the forum defending myself and my view? Because I can’t be bothered with childish name calling and such narrow-minded thinking. I would nonetheless love to be offered links to these people's blogs (if they have the energy and discipline to actually maintain one...) and see what kind of brilliant and above-reproach perceptions they are offering to warrant such holier-than-thou attitudes when most of the posts can be paralleled to scribbles on the bathroom walls of a junior high-school...

As mentioned earlier, if those people that called me names actually had valid arguments and were legitimately opposed to my view, they would have had the guts to post their comments directly on my blog rather than secretly act in such a mean and asinine way!

There! That was my therapy; I did need to vent. Now on to other things...

Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.

Hulu's "Might as Well Surrender"



I believe this first aired during the last Superbowl game. Unfortunately, as I live in Canada, we weren't privy to the same ads – which now represent a good portion of the show – and so I didn’t actually see this ad until recently. And yes, for those of you that do know me, I was watching The Simpsons at the time; other than the news or our famed MeteoMedia channel, The Simpsons is about the only reason why I consider turning on my TV.

And unlike most people, I suppose, I actually like watching commercials as I find them absolutely useful indicators of societal mores and values, etc. This is probably due to the fact that I watch so little TV and so don’t see the ads ‘ad nauseum.’

I was lucky enough to catch this advert from the beginning – when my TV is on, odds are real good that I am also working on my computer and so I rarely see anything from beginning to end the first time – and it had succeeded in capturing my entire attention right till the end. Once it had finished and my snorts and giggles subsided, I didn’t know what to make of it. Brutal honesty from an advertiser always seems to shock, albeit the ending twist that undermines the entire premise.

As I watched the commercial, a phrase which had struck a deep chord with me when I took a media focused sociology course had instantly been brought to mind: TV is chewing gum for the eyes. Surprisingly enough, the commercial seems to make a direct reference to this somewhat famous Frank Lloyd Wright quote when Alec Baldwin says "TV will rot your brain" and later that it only turns it into a "mushy-mush" like substance.
Although I did appreciate the commercial on one level, there was something about it that didn’t agree with me. At first I thought it was because the ending – learning that Alec Balwin is an alien – ridiculed the very idea that TV is today’s ‘opiate’ and so made light of the aforementioned truths.
But after careful consideration I realized that it was the laissez-faire attitude being promoted that made me somewhat indignant; that phrase, “...there's nothing you can do to stop it” almost turns the ad into a plausible promo for bullies, powerful institutions and many governments and fascist-like entities across the world. As mere humans, we are helpless and without recourse – the alien-ruling-the-world idea reinforces this without being offensive (imagine if instead Baldwin had concluded with: “Because we're the US government, and that's how we roll.”).

A deconstruction of the advert essentially leads to this slogan: you are being controlled and dumb-ified; it’s the way it is, it’s the way it’s going to be, so you might as well enjoy it! Buy our product!

Nonetheless, you have to admire the ad's efficiency – Hulu became a well-known name overnight. Are people getting the same message? Doubtful; excessive TV seems to have eradicated that ability in many people…

Keep on clicking!

PDL

Those of you arriving from CL can read my comment below and the ensuing post as reply to all of that, thanks! - Added Feb. 21, 2009 7:08 PM


© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.

The Anti-Coffee Stirrer Effort


.
The world needs changing! No one (other than perhaps Bush and other Republican goons) can deny that things—especially those relating to the environment—are in a sorry state. Groups like Greenpeace, Peta, Unicef, Al Gore and the Alliance for Climate Protection et al. are each taking care of a segment of the major issues, ensuring that attention gets diverted to these causes, but in their fight to educate and bring forth major shifts in our habits and attitudes, some of the smaller fights or contributing factors to some of these big issues get overlooked.

That is why I am proposing the Anti-Coffee Stirrer Effort! Why? Because I figure that if I can stop people from using coffee stirrers, I will have helped to make quite a positive impact on the environment. Of course, I’m not targeting anything one uses to stir his/her coffee; spoons, sticks or whatever implements that get washed and reused are fine with me. However, plastic and wood stirrers that get instantly tossed out should be banned!

Although I am still trying to unearth worthwhile coffee stirrer related statistics substantiating the need to reduce (and hopefully eradicate) their usage, one can very well imagine the amount of plastic and wood that gets tossed in garbage pails all over the world on a daily basis, and this after being barely dipped and twirled—more as a compulsion than a necessity—in coffee.

“But what about my coffee?” you ask. Don’t worry; a world without stirrers won’t imply that you’ll be left to drink a two or three-tiered coffee! I have been enjoying perfectly mixed coffee for the past 16 + years without ever relying on a stirrer.

Here’s a secret very few people seem to know:
Put your sugar and milk in your cup before pouring the coffee! Then pour your coffee in the cup so that the contents get stirred and blended i.e. don’t pour in the coffee like you do with beer when you don’t want any foamy head; do the opposite! And it's the same deal for those of you that are relying on a majority of the differing coffee vending machines to get that required dose—put your milk and sugar in the cup first, then let the machine mix it all for you as it burbles the coffee into your cup.

And if you’re going to put a lid on your coffee, that’s just one more reason to avoid a stirrer. Why not just hold the lid firmly and give your cup a couple of shakes?

I haven’t mentioned anything in regards to reusable mugs as I figure most people should know about them. Nonetheless, I will simply say this: please use them!

I’ll eventually come back with stats to support my cause, but until then, please email this post to any habitual coffee drinker you know and let’s change the world!



Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
Photo credits: Stock photography - Anonymous
.

True Environmentalists Don’t Eat Meat


.
Peta, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has recently released information hoping to educate people about the true devastating effects of the meat production industry.

According to Peta, the most serious environmental problems of our time – global warming, over-exploitation of natural resources, deforestation, wasted land, and water and air pollution – are all directly linked to eating meat.

In fact, a 2006 study produced by the United Nations reports that the meat industry generates nearly 40% more greenhouse-gas emissions than all of the cars, SUVs, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined. The report states that eating one pound of meat generates the same amount of greenhouse gases as driving an SUV for 40 miles.

In an unrelated study, researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegetarian diet is a much more effective method of combating climate change than opting for an electric car over a standard car.
According to Environmental Defense, an environmental advocacy group, “if every American substituted vegetarian foods for chicken at just one meal per week, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than a half-million cars off U.S. roads.”

But the problem extends beyond carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Raising animals for food is the leading source of methane (mostly from feces) and nitrous oxide emissions. These, along with carbon dioxide, are the greatest contributors to the greenhouse effect and global warming.
Methane gas is evaluated to be more than 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in our atmosphere while Nitrous oxide about 300 times. According to the U.N., the meat industry would be responsible for about 65 % of all the world’s nitrous oxide emissions.

Peta may be leading this fight but many other concerned groups are imploring for changes and trying to force food companies to list per-serving greenhouse-gas emissions information on product labels to educate consumers.

As more is being done on this front, it is becoming exceedingly clear that the most effective way to combat global warming is to stop eating meat, eggs, and dairy products.
Anyone truly interested is invited to take a few moments to write to Al Gore - the most prominent voice in the fight against global warming – and the Alliance for Climate Protection, encouraging them to make their seven-point pledge an eight-point pledge by adding going vegetarian to the list of solutions to our climate crisis. Click here to learn more.

For anyone still questioning the necessity for change in the meat industry, I recommend you watch the following video http://www.meat.org/. I must warn you, it is an absolutely brutal and devastating (I was unable to watch all of it) ‘behind-the-scene’ look at what really goes on in animal farms and slaughterhouses.

Sources and resources:
http://www.peta.org/
http://www.goveg.com/



Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.
Photo credits: "Meat Indutry" by Chris Bourne
.

$ 78 Billion Fast-Tracked (or Derailed?)


.
Bush Jr. has left office; he’s no longer in control and so can no longer keep a lid on all he’s done – and from what we’ve seen and know about Bush’s government, ugly details are bound to creep out of the ‘woodwork’; these shouldn’t come as surprises.

So news that Americans have overpaid their ‘assets’ to the tune of $78 billion which the State Department cannot account for – although it certainly is insulting – shouldn’t be that big of a shock. The question instantly raised in my mind is: was Dick Cheney somehow involved?

Elizabeth Warren, Harvard professor and Chairwoman of the oversight panel, has revealed that 34 % of American tax-payer’s money which was supposedly invested by the Treasury is missing; according to a lengthy review of all the numbers, the panel has concluded that $78 billion has not in fact been invested but has been used, essentially, to subsidize banks.

Warren cannot offer any plausible explanation as to why the government would have acted this way and chides that, despite Treasury official’s claim that this was done to speed-track transactions necessary for their ‘bail-out’ plan, honesty and transparency should have been applied. Learning about this ‘discrepancy’ through a third-party just raises a lot of severe doubts and questions.

Now that the truth is out and a new government is in place, are we already seeing reason behind what I had voiced in a previous Obama post, that all every one is going to remember is that things were at their worst when a black guy was in charge? People can hardly remember major news events that happened 6 months ago – are they going to remember Bush and his overtly-greedy cronies a few years from now when consequences for all they’ve done will finally reach some sort of apex, and the U.S. is reduced to a beggar-state wide open to foreign investments and takeovers?

And who are the owners of these banks which have received those funds? Trust me, the information is not readily available.
And is there a connection between this and the 1996 collective current-account deficit of $ 78 billion held by ‘emerging’ countries, as reported by the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and the now inexplicable surplus to deficit offset of over $ 265 billion which cannot be explained by the IMF? Although this is mere speculation, it seems to me like the world’s biggest scam, pulled off by the world’s richest men, may finally be coming to light. American involvement with the IMF and the World Bank cannot be taken lightly; I cringe at the thought of someone like Bush being in a locked room with like-minded men to decide what should be done with the ‘world’s money.’


Keep on clicking!

PDL

© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier

Picture: Book cover - How to Get Stupid White Men Out of Office: The Anti-Politics, Un-Boring Guide to Power by William Upski Wimsatt
.

Down My Street and Up Yours. Copyrights © 2008 - 2011 by pdl com. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews, no part of this blog may be used in any manner whatsoever without written permission from the owner. For information contact: pdlussier[at]downmystreetandupyours.org