Hi to all!
For all those wondering what's happening... this blog isn't dead (nor am I)! I'm taking a holiday and a short break from my PC, but I will be back soon.
Until then...
Keep on clicking!
PDL
© 2009, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.
.
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
.
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
.
.
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
.
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
.
.
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!!!
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.
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
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.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
