As of November 16th 2008, the Ontario government has passed new driving laws that affect the younger generation of drivers. The law states that all drivers under the age of 21 are required to have a blood alcohol level of zero, speeding of 16 km an hour over the speed limit, will result in a license suspension for thirty days and only one other passenger is allowed in the car less than 19 years of age.
This new law that has been passed greatly goes against all other environmental laws. The government has been trying to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions to better the health of the environment, us and the entire world. I do agree that there should be strong laws placed on speeding and drunk driving, but limiting the amount of passengers to a vehicle, only creates more vehicles on the road, more greenhouse gas emissions.
Other consequences that arise from limiting the number of passengers is that this puts more vehicles on the road, diminishes the purpose of a designated driver, eliminates carpooling and many others. In today’s society where environmental ignorance is looked down upon, it is surprising to see that the Ontario government would pass a law that does not show any consideration for the environment. Carpooling and designated drivers are designed around the idea of using all seats in the car. Designated drivers are there to protect intoxicated persons from needing to drive themselves home. Most people will now recognize that they will not be able to get a ride back unless they take a taxi or bring their own car and most will probably choose the latter simply because they do not want to spend their money on taxis if they have a car. Also, students who carpool to school with friends will no longer be able to use this method because of this law. They will have to find other ways to school, which is difficult for many of them. This also includes sporting events where students need to carpool to play or cheer on a sports team.
Teenagers who live in rural areas of Ontario will be at a great problem. This new law will force many of these young people, way more than needed, to drive around to have a proper social life. This will force older drivers to drive them around instead. This will inconvenience many and cause many social interaction problems, that will cause these people stress and frustration.
Inevitably, the more cars there are on the road, the more accidents there will be. I question the reason behind this. If the likelihood of accidents rises due to the much larger amount of cars on the road, then how will this be safer for drivers?
I think the Ontario government should review the recently passed law. They should keep in mind that they are saying that people who can vote, help to decide the direction that their country will move in, cannot drive with their friends. These people cannot interact with people in a convenient manner. I think as an Ontario residence, this is unacceptable and that premier Dalton McGuinty needs to decide laws with professionalism and common sense … not by emotion.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Sweatshop Fashion?
In class we have begun examining sweatshops that are run by some of the biggest countries the world has ever seen. We have looked at the atrocities that occur in these sweatshops and have begun to question intervention methods. What we can do. I have personally decided that as citizens we are able to stop boycott these products, send complaint letters to the corporations, hold strikes and create petitions; all of which will do little to nothing. I believe all the power to putting an end to these sweatshops lies completely in government hands.
These sweatshops are very unsafe. Many workers become disabled for life from accidents that can be easily be avoided in a workplace. Wages are also very low in sweatshops and hours are long. Workers receive about 0.4% of each total sale. That is a very small amount. Most workers (even with pay) are still not able to support their families or sometimes even themselves. That is unjust and wrong. Some workers have been subject to harassment verbally and sexually. Exploiting humans should not be accepted but it is.
We as civilians can do little to change this. The majority of Canada would have to boycott these companies. I have a strong doubt this would work. For one reason, there are too many stores that use sweatshop labour to produce their goods and many people are not willing to give up “good style”. We can send as many complaint letters to CEO’s of as many corporations as we possibly can and most will be destined to wait on a desk for months at best. Holding strikes and petitions will only show these corporations how many people did not attend or sign; all the people who will still buy their products. To be honest, if I was a CEO of a corporation who obviously did not care for human rights, I would not care about a few people getting angry about it, as long as I still made my money.
The way to stop these corporations is through government action. The Canadian government needs to ban selling products made in other countries such as clothing, electronics etc. Food is another story, as some can’t grow in Canada. If the government bans the selling of products made in other countries, then that will force these companies to open factories in Canada to sell to this market. This will increase Canadian economics too. If other countries follow suit with this, then these corporations will be forced to do this in every country it applies to. This will also force the removal of sweatshops out of developing countries as there will no longer be a need for them.
Some would say that passing a law stating this is not possible because it would demean the entire ideal of international trade. This is not so, trade will still be accepted with other countries as long as it free trade or trade that is ensured that the products are made with fairness and equality, ensuring human rights. It is a law that is based on morals, like many other laws in Canada that ensure human rights such as; do not commit murder, do not steal and freedom of speech; basic human rights
This is very easy for the Canadian government to do as well as many other governments around the world. It is left for them to decide whether or not they believe in human rights for all.
These sweatshops are very unsafe. Many workers become disabled for life from accidents that can be easily be avoided in a workplace. Wages are also very low in sweatshops and hours are long. Workers receive about 0.4% of each total sale. That is a very small amount. Most workers (even with pay) are still not able to support their families or sometimes even themselves. That is unjust and wrong. Some workers have been subject to harassment verbally and sexually. Exploiting humans should not be accepted but it is.
We as civilians can do little to change this. The majority of Canada would have to boycott these companies. I have a strong doubt this would work. For one reason, there are too many stores that use sweatshop labour to produce their goods and many people are not willing to give up “good style”. We can send as many complaint letters to CEO’s of as many corporations as we possibly can and most will be destined to wait on a desk for months at best. Holding strikes and petitions will only show these corporations how many people did not attend or sign; all the people who will still buy their products. To be honest, if I was a CEO of a corporation who obviously did not care for human rights, I would not care about a few people getting angry about it, as long as I still made my money.
The way to stop these corporations is through government action. The Canadian government needs to ban selling products made in other countries such as clothing, electronics etc. Food is another story, as some can’t grow in Canada. If the government bans the selling of products made in other countries, then that will force these companies to open factories in Canada to sell to this market. This will increase Canadian economics too. If other countries follow suit with this, then these corporations will be forced to do this in every country it applies to. This will also force the removal of sweatshops out of developing countries as there will no longer be a need for them.
Some would say that passing a law stating this is not possible because it would demean the entire ideal of international trade. This is not so, trade will still be accepted with other countries as long as it free trade or trade that is ensured that the products are made with fairness and equality, ensuring human rights. It is a law that is based on morals, like many other laws in Canada that ensure human rights such as; do not commit murder, do not steal and freedom of speech; basic human rights
This is very easy for the Canadian government to do as well as many other governments around the world. It is left for them to decide whether or not they believe in human rights for all.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
I Lay in My Bed
I'm laying in my bed
Soft sheets and a window with a view
Moon shines a sun-burnt red
As if it had seen the ones who now lay dead
I'm laying in my bed
Scared of the reality that mankind has built
Scared of reliving it in shards of nightmare
Scared of knowing that this is one
I can never awake from
I hear the clock tick
Something 'bout pain, it always sticks
I know time won't sleep
Throughout our lives it will creep
During pain, laughter, joy and anger
And it will not allow us to let go
Of every memory and emotion we know
Laying in my bed
Strong visions cycle through my head
A boy waits alone on a street
A mother cries over an empty plate
A father fights each day in soldiers feet
Laying in my bed
Harsh visions cycle through my head
A girl makes wishes to the stars
A brother stands fearless to a raging storm
An innocent burns out her life behind bars
Laying in my bed
Real visions cycle through my head
A life becomes a price to pay
A human lies bloody in a road-side ditch
A someone still remains next to nothing
As I lay in my warm and comfy, safe bed
Isaac Eagle-Bell
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Bowling For Columbine
In my opinion the documentary by Michael Moore "Bowling for Columbine" is less about the actual school shootings at Columbine High School, rather more about gun violence in America. Moore displays the history of guns in America (the constitutional right) in an easy-to-understand cartoon. Michael Moore then shows the ease at which it is for an average person to obtain a gun in the United States. One instance is when he walks into a bank, opens an account, and wam bam, they hand him a gun.
Another point that Moore raises is that many American children are raised by parents that belong to the military. Thus many children have been raised around gun violence and have probably been taught from such an upbringing that is an okay choice for problem solving.
There are other "reasons" for violence that has been pointed out by the major population of America. Some of these "reasons" is violent video games, violent movies, violent TV shows and most the most disturbing one of all ... violent lyrical content.
Moore goes in depth with these issues and ends up interviewing Marilyn Manson, who is a main target for violent lyrical content by the mass public. During this interview Michael Moore asked Manson many questions. One of the question's responses really surprised me. The question from Moore to Manson was "What would you say to these boys if you could?". Manson replied with ease like it was common sense "I wouldn't have said anything, I would have listened, which no one else was able to do". That response was very surprising and very gratifying towards himself. This is so because the biggest "reason" to why there is gun violence in schools by the point of view of the mass public is from Marilyn Manson's music, yet he seemed to be the only one who had the right idea of what to do with these kids. It seemed like he was the only one with his head screwed on tight.
The conclusion came that these "reasons" were not appropriate to be recognised as to actual reasons why these shootings occurred. Moore shows that these were not good enough reasons. He shows this by comparison of other countries. Many other countries have way more examples of violence shown and heard, but gun violence is substantially lower in these countries so these reasons are definitely not the culprits of gun violence in America.
A point that Michael Moore raises is the National Rifle Association (NRA). This "cult" or organisation is often very prominent in the world of guns. After Columbine they held a meeting in the same area. Moore points out that this is not the only death by gun situation where they have turned up shortly after. This is also a very big organisation in the United States of America; Michael Moore even has a membership. Although Moore believes that they are too occupying of young minds. He talks about how they have weaseled their way into young minds to try and have them join.
Another reason that Moore points out may have a huge impact on guns in America is the amount of ignorance and fear alive in America. The media has become very good at subjecting people to the thought of a hostile country. People have been scared that they have loaded themselves up with lots of guns and a too-quick-to-think reaction time. People all over the united states have been equipping themselves with guns. Moore shows this by interviewing a formed militia. In my opinion it is ridiculous. The people involved in the militia are practicing on targets with heavy machine guns such as AK-47's and M16's. These kinds of weapons (all weapons) do not belong in a household. Only small rifles should be kept for hunting purposes. This last reason seems the most appropriate to me. Ignorance and fear sounds completely acceptable to me for gun-violence. The media should re-think their approaches to nation-wide broadcasts to de-promote fear in American homes.
Another point that Moore raises is that many American children are raised by parents that belong to the military. Thus many children have been raised around gun violence and have probably been taught from such an upbringing that is an okay choice for problem solving.
There are other "reasons" for violence that has been pointed out by the major population of America. Some of these "reasons" is violent video games, violent movies, violent TV shows and most the most disturbing one of all ... violent lyrical content.
Moore goes in depth with these issues and ends up interviewing Marilyn Manson, who is a main target for violent lyrical content by the mass public. During this interview Michael Moore asked Manson many questions. One of the question's responses really surprised me. The question from Moore to Manson was "What would you say to these boys if you could?". Manson replied with ease like it was common sense "I wouldn't have said anything, I would have listened, which no one else was able to do". That response was very surprising and very gratifying towards himself. This is so because the biggest "reason" to why there is gun violence in schools by the point of view of the mass public is from Marilyn Manson's music, yet he seemed to be the only one who had the right idea of what to do with these kids. It seemed like he was the only one with his head screwed on tight.
The conclusion came that these "reasons" were not appropriate to be recognised as to actual reasons why these shootings occurred. Moore shows that these were not good enough reasons. He shows this by comparison of other countries. Many other countries have way more examples of violence shown and heard, but gun violence is substantially lower in these countries so these reasons are definitely not the culprits of gun violence in America.
A point that Michael Moore raises is the National Rifle Association (NRA). This "cult" or organisation is often very prominent in the world of guns. After Columbine they held a meeting in the same area. Moore points out that this is not the only death by gun situation where they have turned up shortly after. This is also a very big organisation in the United States of America; Michael Moore even has a membership. Although Moore believes that they are too occupying of young minds. He talks about how they have weaseled their way into young minds to try and have them join.
Another reason that Moore points out may have a huge impact on guns in America is the amount of ignorance and fear alive in America. The media has become very good at subjecting people to the thought of a hostile country. People have been scared that they have loaded themselves up with lots of guns and a too-quick-to-think reaction time. People all over the united states have been equipping themselves with guns. Moore shows this by interviewing a formed militia. In my opinion it is ridiculous. The people involved in the militia are practicing on targets with heavy machine guns such as AK-47's and M16's. These kinds of weapons (all weapons) do not belong in a household. Only small rifles should be kept for hunting purposes. This last reason seems the most appropriate to me. Ignorance and fear sounds completely acceptable to me for gun-violence. The media should re-think their approaches to nation-wide broadcasts to de-promote fear in American homes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)