Canada to flex military muscle

For a long while I was perfectly happy with Canada's virtually demilitarized state, but recently I've seen the need for competent military strength become more apparant. Now, I'm fully in support of efforts to significantly increase Canada's military strength, so that we'll never have to deal with a Darfur or some other such situation here at home.

In a move that's great and I'm glad was made by us, Paul Martin has decided to make the first move in Sudan by offering to train African peacekeepers to help defuse the tensions in Darfur. I think its great that we're all willing to help out a country in need. Also, I'd be equally sad if I lived in Sudan, and didn't have peacekeepers of my own to handle the situation.

Also, I think something's going buggy on a global scale when the first country to resort to military intervention is Canada.

A TRUE Canadian Icon

Trudeau? Fox? Frye? No, I mean an icon that truly is a bastion of all things Canadian... William Shatner!

He doesn't always represent the best of what Canada has to offer, but we all know he's got a LOT of whats true about us in him. Funny, but kind of wierd. Successful, but nobody's really sure how he got there.

For those of you who love Shatner as much as I do, he's got a new audio CD entitled Has Been (I'm not sure if thats ironic). It's produced by Ben Folds (of the BF Five) and features Joe Jackson, Henry Rollins, Aimee Mann, Adrian Belew & Lemon Jelly.

And for those of you who are wondering, I am unabashedly plugging Shatner's new CD, but who in my shoes wouldn't do the same thing? Just to put this out there: Shatner for PM. Think about it.

I think we've been here before

I've been wondering for quite a while about what's really going on in Iraq right now. When the war in Iraq began I knew what American soldiers were fighting for: to capture the Iraqi oil fields... I mean dictator.

Now that the target has been captured, things are different and I'm not too sure what it is troops are fighting for over there anymore. On top of that, young kids seem to be getting sent home in bodybags at an ever increasing rate, which seems counterintuitive to me.

This article in the star painted a picture that I'd somehow always expected to be pretty close to the truth. What is being accomplished in the middle east that requires the generation of 30 to 55 wounded soldiers per day... per medical centre?? I don't know... it's not a rhetorical question so if you know, please email me.

While we're at it, another stunning example of the logic behind these wartime decisions (I believe it was David Cross who made this observation) involves the US calling a portion of their retired military band back into service. They were one of several groups called out of retirement, but the musicians were needed because the army was sending too many bodybags back and didn't have enough musicians to play at all the military funerals.

To clarify. Imagine one government official reading his war statistics and he realizes that the army's taking huge numbers of casualties in Iraq, and can't even give these shiploads of dead kids proper funerals because the whole band is already committed... at other funerals! He thinks for a second & says out loud: "We're gonna have to hire more musicians." It's a funny image, but the reality of the situation is not so funny.

At this point I think the US has pretty much two options: stay in Iraq indefinetly, or pull out asap. Anything in between is probably just going to waste lives & money. The first is a totally unreasonable and unconstitutional situation I think, and the second basically puts us back to where we were after Bush 1 left Iraq. The difference being that the country is now in a deeper state of chaos, and is filled with more new, young, ambitious terrorists. John Kerry's going to have a big hole to dig out of.

George W....Sudan Has WMD!

Okay, maybe they don't. But if I've learned anything from Desert Storm Episode 2, it's that only those countries undergoing catastrophic humanitarian crises who can also provide sketchy, incomplete evidence of nuclear weapons programs will be considered for intervention.

Foreign officials from both the UN and the US have been reporting all year that the Sudanese government is attempting to ethnically cleanse its own country. What has been done to remedy this situation? We've dropped plenty of food, reviewed many proposals, reported unfavorably about the Sudanese government... and not much else from what I can see. In one of the aforementioned reports, the US proposed using sanctions to help coerce Sudan's government into putting a halt to their genocidal efforts. The UN Security Council had some concerns over the wording... I think it went something like this:

SECURITY COUNCIL: We have some concerns over the wording of this document, we think the term you've used here may be too harsh

U.S.: Oh, Genocide you mean?

SECURITY COUNCIL: No! Gosh no, we meant sanctions. Any fool can see we've got a genocide on our hands... but lets be careful about throwing words like sanctions around.

Now I don't endorse the war in Iraq, but thats another post for another time. What I will say is that the appalling degree of inaction the UN has displayed in Sudan just begs for Iraq-type conflicts to happen when nations as frustrated with the situation as I am, decide to act unilaterally. If the UN Security Council is going to be an effective sheriff to the wold then they're going to need to find some bollocks.

One Year Older, Somehow No Wiser

Mazel Tov! Today's my birthday!

I'm sure it affects very few of my vast swaths of readers, but I feel the need to share my milestone with all of you anyhow. I guess thats why I started this thing in the first place.

Do You Rememeber Rock & Roll Radio?

It's bad enough that the most successful musicians of today are primarily rubbish; the last thing we need is for what greats we do have to be taken away from us.

Yesterday Johnny Ramone died after a 5 year battle with prostate cancer. After having lost Joey Ramone in 2001 and Dee Dee Ramone in 2003 the only living original member of the legendary 70's punk quartet is drummer Tommy Ramone.

I know its cliche to say that all new music sucks so I won't. What I will say is that very seldom anymore do we hear anything new. Johnny Cash, The Ramones, The Clash, Nirvana... all great bands not necessarily because they were musically talented, but because they pioneered new movements in music. Kurt Cobain & Nirvana ushered in the era of grunge rock that the 90's is so well known for. Cobain has been dead for over 10 years now, and I'm hard pressed to think artists who have taken music in a new direction since then.

In honor of Johnny and his contribution to our lives, I propose that each of us heads down to the local record store, and purchases a CD by somebody we've never heard of. You could be listening to the next Radiohead, or Andrew WK.

You Think You're Pretty Hot Eh Beaver? Try This!

From time to time, I see something like this that makes me absolutely love, and somewhat question, the country I live in.

To fully appreciate the implications of this article, there is one line of paramount importance: "The dog was possibly celebrating the Canadian victory in the hockey game".

I don't think I even need to comment on that, it writes itself. Only in Canada.

An invitation?... for me!?

This image appeared as a quarter-page ad in the Op-Ed section of the New York Times. It's a couple of weeks old, but it's pure gold.

Say it ain't so Bob!

Am I missing something? It seems to me that the NHLPA cannot be stupid enough to think they will benefit from allowing themselves to be locked out. According to the NHL, player salaries last season accounted for approximately 75% of the revenue brought into the league. The league figures that in an economic system that works for all NHL teams, player salaries must eat up no more than 50% of the league revenue. If I'm a highly paid player, that means there's a lot of money I'm no longer going to be getting. I can see that each side has a valid argument here. But...

An acquaintance of mine here at school has a cousin who plays in the NHL. I won't mention who the player is, but his defense of the players' decision to allow themselves to be locked out went something like this: "Just like doctors have a reasonable expectation to make a large amount of money because they're at the top of their field, we hockey players expect to make a certain amount of money for being at the top of our field, and we won't accept anything less." My problem with that attitude is this: YOU WILL STILL BE INCREDIBLY RICH! Playing in the NHL is not an easy job, but it's a fantastically good one nonetheless. I would be more than happy to switch places with any player who feels he's being ripped off in his industry.

Yes, if you are one of the more highly paid players in the league, you will be getting paid substantially less... but you will still be making a shocking amount of money. This makes it very difficult for me to support the NHLPA's position in this dispute. The reality of the situation is that they salaries they're currently being paid are simply not sustainable. Either there's no hockey right now because of a lockout, or there's no hockey five years from now, because the NHL is bankrupt.

In any case, aren't I indirectly the one who pays the players' salaries? If they aren't happy with what they're being offered then maybe I don't want to give them any of my money anymore. I'm not joking, just ask the Blue Jays.

Can't we all be friends?

For every person you speak to and for every news article you read, you will likely find a differnet take on Canada's current health care summit, and the problems it needs to address. As Matt F points out, each of these arguments seems valid on the surface, backed up by reasonable figures and (usually) sensible ideas.

What's a citizen to do then, when faced with contentions that (a) Lack of federal funding is the problem (b) Lack of federal funding is not the problem? What if both arguments seem true?

I think the reality of the matter is that most of the arguments we hear from experts are true. More federal funding would probably help our health care a lot, but it certainly won't solve all our problems. Our health care has a lot of issues; thus, there are a lot of approaches which will be beneficial.

What we (that means you bureaucrats too!) tend to forget is that every person at the health care summit genuinely wants to make Canada a better place. Whether it's the premiers or the PM, I'm willing to bet that any one of their ideas would improve my health care, if only they could implement it. I would love to see Canada elect a group of officials who would act like adults , and put the good of the nation before their own egos. "This isn't my idea for health care reform, but goddamit its going to make Canada a better place so lets get to it!"

Maybe its naive of me to think that would be good for the nation, but wouldn't it be great to see our so called leaders rallying together... all for you! Plus, I prefer that type of naivete to the kind of cynicism I currently suffer from, which makes me believe that we will achieve absolutely nil at this summit.

The time has come

WIll it never end?

I've been considering starting a blog of my own for quite some time now, and with blogs run by my friends suddenly cropping up in every direction, I think its time for me to make myself heard as well.

Over and above my own selfish desire to be noticed, I think I've got something to offer the blogosphere. After a brief hiatus from school and career related business, I believe now that I'm back I've got more relevant and pertinent material to share with the blogosphere than I did earlier. Thus, now is the time for Black Coffee Blues to come to life.

Knowing myself, I imagine most of my subject matter will revolve around health & wellness, politics (with a bit of a green tint most likely) & what I hope will be a perspective on whats going on around me that's worth the time it takes to read. If its not, I encourage you to continue surfing. If it is, I encourage you to let me know.