Setting such a fine example?

A thirteen-year-old boy cowers in the men’s washroom after a Minor Hockey tournament, not hiding from a schoolyard bully, but hiding from an adult. This same boy, so terrified, waited long enough to ensure he would not be confronted by a parent of a seven-year-old minor hockey player. This actually took place in Leduc on February 7, at a Leduc Minor Hockey game between a Leduc team and a Wetaskiwin team. The boy was a 13-year-old referee. His offense, not making the calls a hockey parent wanted to see in what was supposed to be an amateur kids hockey game.

The real sad issue here is that this sort of primitive behaviour by some parents is nothing new. It is not even isolated to the hockey culture or a specific gender. Parents vicariously living out their glory through the shin pads of their seven year old has become what one Leduc Minor Hockey Official has described as, “standard procedure in the game of hockey.”

These parents don’t stop to consider how they are being perceived by their own child. As a father begins to spit insults and threats on another youth while banging on the Plexiglas shield of the rink. His anger flares up in his face and the pupils of his eyes grow dark. This primitive behaviour has no place in society, the hockey rink, soccer field or baseball pit.

One could even imagine this father, mentor and role model loading his child’s gear in the car while he begins to regale his boy on the finer points of the game such as sportsmanship, fair play and healthy competitive spirit. As he drives his son home he looks over to see his child looking down at the floor mats in shame. He reaches over, rubs his son’s head and says, ‘Ya did good boy!’ At the same time he pulls off the arena lot, a 13-year-old boy peers his head out of the men’s washroom to see if the ‘coast’ is clear. Shame on you!

Just how serious is this problem? A survey in 2001 revealed that 55 percent of parents witnessed other parents engaging in verbal abuse at youth sporting events. Twenty one percent say they’ve witnessed a physical altercation between two parents at a youth sporting event. Nearly 73 percent polled indicated abusive parents should be banned from games and practices.

Eight years has passed and no affirmative action has taken place. The only indication that the problem has been identified is Hockey Canada’s ‘Speak Out’ program established in 1997. The program is designed to educate players about harassment and bullying. In light of the ongoing problem it appears programs and talk is not enough to deal with it.

Our recent Leduc Minor Hockey incident is only one of many. In Timmins, Ont., an angry hockey parent threw a metal garbage can on the rink in an attempt to hit the referee. In Hamilton, Ont., a Minor Hockey league coach was charged with ‘Uttering threats of death’ at a teenage referee following an outburst over a two-minute penalty. In January of 2002, an adult hockey player named Scott Leduc, (yes that’s his last name) threw a punch, breaking a referee’s nose during a recreational game in Montreal. In Brampton, Ont., a basketball coach named Paul Lewen head- butted a referee resulting in a broken nose and two hours of surgery.

In light of these samples of similar behaviour, do we not get a sense that our 13-year-old Leduc referee was thinking on his feet when he hid in the men’s washroom for protection?

This type of behaviour in amateur youth sports tends to transfer onto the ice as young impressionable players get the idea that what they see in the stands should transfer into the game. Kids are forced to play adult versions of games to satisfy an ‘adult’ thirst for experiencing what they watch on television. It could be argued that when parents are more focused on what they see on the scoreboard, they lose focus on why they put their child into sports in the first place. A sport designed to build character and self-esteem with a sense of purpose.

In the meantime, while 13-year-old referees cower in the ‘head’, hockey associations are talking about educating the children and parents on good behaviour and fair play. Lip service at the risk of real injuries. This is an old problem, round table discussions have not worked. Calling a time out and stuffing a parent’s nose in the corner is not the answer.

The odd thing here is Canada has laws designed to deal with these immature adults. The Criminal Code protects society from disturbances in or near public places such as hockey rinks. Section 175(1)C.C. identifies a disturbance in part as, fighting, screaming, swearing, using insulting or obscene language. Surely, the incident in Leduc would merit a summary charge under the Criminal Code. Other sections of the Criminal Code make uttering a threat a criminal offence. Could it be that this parent committed a criminal offence on public property? As a matter of fact, it’s not too late to charge him for terrifying this 13- year-old boy.

Perhaps, the police should follow the ‘Community Policing Model’ and make a point of attending a few of these games. You know, ‘Keep the peace and all that.’

Is our Government planning to punish our Seniors?

There is no better way to say it. The Alberta Government in their finite wisdom is planning to punish the very people we should be heaping much earned respect on, the senior citizens of this great province. Apparently, those we elect to government must believe that they will never grow old!

In December of 2008, Hon. Ron Liepert, our Minister of Health and Wellness unveiled his new Pharmaceutical Strategy. This document is an ill-conceived, discriminatory plan to tax the senior, transfer financial burden, remove universality of the Canada Health Act and create appalling side effects for many Alberta Seniors. His plan will remove the premium-free Blue Cross plan for all Senior Citizens who earn $21,326 or more per year, which is a measly earnings of under $1,800 per month.

It sounds like these very much-earned Blue Cross benefits will only apply for people who are dependant on a senior’s home or long-term care facility. I wonder if Mr. Liepert has ever had to live on this income considering that his pension package will far exceed any income of the average senior not at this poverty level.

I don’t want to mince words, so lets take a look at what this document will mean for the independent Senior and those soon to be.

Mr. Leipert's plan violates the universality principles of the Canada Health Act in that all health care benefits should be made available to everyone on the basis of need, regardless of their ability to pay, or age.

It will also transfer the cost of a much-needed social benefit directly onto an identifiable group of people, those over the age 65. What was once a cost shared program by all income earners of Alberta, the cost will be shifted directly on the senior citizen. This is nothing less than an additional tax on those people 65 years old and over!

Worse yet, it is a practice, if not a physical fact that as we get older we tend to need the services of a doctor. These visits to clinics in more cases than not, result in a drug prescription filled. Could it be that the politicians in government are finding a way of courting the young voters by making it possible to reduce taxes for those under 65?

The Alberta tax policy states that income should be taxed at a maximum flat rate of 10%. Under this plan the senior may be taxed at a rate of 17% for those seniors that are not impoverished! Should not income disparity be addressed through our taxation system and not the healthcare system?

Leipert’s plan comes into effect at a time when the rest of Canada is in a recession and if things keep going the same way, Alberta may see our growth below 1%. This has already caused many seniors to tighten their belts and they have made plans based on having certain historical benefits at their disposal. By removing the Blue Cross benefit it will create an even greater burden to the Alberta Senior!

One of the side effects is that this plan will create a possible personal information protection leakage, since it imposes a statutory requirement to monitor benefit eligibility. People like bureaucrats and pharmacists will need to have more of our personal information. The security of this information in the internet age cannot be guaranteed. The mechanisms required in securing this information, the policies required to implements these changes might be costly for government. Since the pharmacists will need to access some of our personal information to know when government coverage commences, it makes one wonder how secure our personal data will be. It further puts an onus on the pharmacist to protect this information.

In spite of all these concerns that I have voiced, the last thing is that this plan is discriminatory. Health Care benefits should be available equally to all sectors of society. The government should not be in the practice to denying benefits to anyone based on race, gender or age. Profiling health care coverage in any form based on need, and risk management is unacceptable. It sounds like the government wants to appear to have universal health coverage, without having to actually deliver.

This plan does not go into effect until January 1st of 2010. If decreased health benefits for seniors is as much as concern for you as it is for me, I would urge the people of this province to start a letter writing campaign, call the MLA office nearest you and log your concerns. You can start by calling the RITE government phone number at 780-310-0000.

Don’t make a Monkey out of me!

At one time if you wanted to point out to someone that they are making a fool of you, you could ask them politely not to make a “monkey” out of you. It is also common to use the word “Ape” to describe someone of low intelligence or lacking intellect of any kind. In other words we, mankind, considered the Monkey a low creature on the totem pole. The practice of using these as insults has always been unacceptable behavior, but the use of these very descriptors says something about how mankind places themselves in nature.

Theology teaches us that man was given dominion over the world and all creatures in it by God. More than 2000 years ago the Greek philosopher and agnostic, Aristotle declared, ‘Mother Nature had made all animals for the sake of man but there are moves to put the relationship on a more equal footing.’

So, where am I going with this? In June of 2008 Aristotle became a true prophet. The country of Spain and their socialist monarchy had changed their ‘Human Rights and Obligations’ charter to include the “Ape” as equal to “Man” and in doing so have granted Apes human rights in that country. In essence Apes in that country will have specific privileges and protections under the laws that protect their citizens and those visiting that country. Is Spain making a Monkey of us all?

Their reasoning for this is that Apes have anywhere from 95 to 99% human DNA in their genes. They further declared that the Ape is “self-aware” and they have displayed emotions like affection and anger. The Spanish government sees the “Ape” as their closest cousins and therefore should be given the same rights and protections as any other human under the law.

You would think that every thinking human being would be rather incensed by Spain’s actions, but surprisingly that is not the case. Australian philosopher Peter Singer is quoted as saying, “The case is clear for great apes. Like humans, they are entitled to certain rights. And if we deny rights to chimps, we will logically have to deny those same rights to intellectually disabled children too.” Yerkes psychologist and emeritus professor Ronald Nadler has said, “You get sucked in by them. They’re wonderful animals. It’s hard not to think of them as little people.”

So if you think that the actions of Spain will not encroach further into society, than think again. In Austria a British woman, Paula Stibbe, has gone to court to have judges decide whether she should become the legal guardian of a chimpanzee called Hiasi. Her argument is that Hiasi was kidnapped from its tribe in West Africa 25 years ago. The animal sanctuary where the chimp lived is being closed and sold to a zoo. Stibbe is trying to persuade the courts to afford the chimp the same rights and protection of a child.

Every democratic country on this planet has laws designed to protect animals from cruel and unusual punishment at the hands of man. Canada has written protections of animals into the Criminal Code. Each provincial government has laws and organizations providing protection of animals from pets to animal husbandry. Responsible municipalities have bylaws designed to protect animals and control the homeless pet population. So why does any country feel the need to elevate any animal’s status to that of man?

The argument of Spain turning monkey onto man for the animals protection does not hold water. When you look at Spain’s track record regarding human rights, I doubt it was the protection argument that motivated the Spanish elite.

According to the Human Rights Watch, World Report 2008, Spain violated the human rights of migrants who arrived on the Spanish shores looking for protection. They were arrested and detained in appalling conditions. At times more than 500 migrants are kept in a space that the Spanish Red Cross has determined to be fit for fifty people. Detainees are cut off to the outside world and they are not allowed to leave the premises for exercise or given exposure to fresh air and sunlight. This is the country that is so concerned for the Ape they needed to legislate them as equal to man?

I would suggest that the Ape is better in the hands of the Bronx Zoo than in Spain.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights may one day apply to not only you and I but of the Chimpanzee, the Orangutan, Gorilla, Monkey and Gibbons. Part of which states; “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.”

This is just a portion of the UN Universal Declaration of Humans Rights that all member Nations adhere to. It starts with Spain and Austria. How long will it be before other countries give Apes worldly dominion equal to Man?

Does Al Gore have a case of Venus Envy?

“It won’t heal if you don’t stop picking at it,” my Mom always said just before I would take careful aim at the huge scab on my knee. I had promised myself that I would leave the likes of Al Gore alone, hoping that the scab would just disappear. But like many an oozing wound, Al Gore just keeps demanding attention.

It would not take long before Gore would take a run at Obama and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It seems each year he addresses this committee attacking his personal nemesis carbon dioxide (CO2) while dragging his pet dog Kyoto by it’s collar. This year he raised the bar higher than ever before.

To recap we should at least acknowledge his previous alarmist topics. He claimed that the Polar Bear was on the brink of extinction because of the effects of CO2. No, they are still here today in record numbers. He followed those claims with his movie the “Inconvenient Truth,” targeting the shrinking icecaps, with his famous ‘hockey stick’ climate model. But this month the results came in that showed that the ice caps are at their highest volume since 1979.

Being the smart fella Gore is, since earthly pseudo-observations did not work, he did the only thing a self-motivated politician could. Like Benny Hinn, he raised his arms above his head, named it then claimed it and with a tear in his eye looked to the heavens and...no, Gore did not find God, he found Venus!

Last Wednesday with laser pointer in hand, MS Power-Point loaded, Gore chided that CO2 in Venus’ atmosphere supercharged that planets greenhouse effect. He pointed out that this supercharging keeps Venus at a temperature of 466 degrees Celsius. Gripping his audience he then stated that it was not Venus’ distance to the Sun that makes that planet hotter than Earth, it was CO2. He qualified that by stating that Mercury, which is even closer to the Sun, is cooler than Venus. This was his scientific approach in urging the committee to stop releasing CO2 into the climate or in very short order the Earth would be as hot as Venus.

Gore put down his pointer, looked down at Kyoto wagging its tail in victory.
Silence was observed in the room. Not a chuckle was heard. It was a new committee with a new “Yes we can!” mandate. Obama’s in the house, so not a Republican in the room chuckled.

His approach is once again alarmist with no respect for real science. Since Mercury has little to no atmosphere, the heat received from the sun is a direct result of a radiation hitting the scorched surface. Therefore, each time that planet rotates, the far side cools rapidly with no heat retention. Venus in comparison has an atmosphere that is 97% CO2! No plant life to breath the gas and then return oxygen, no life to breath oxygen and return CO2 back to plants. For Gore to use these two planets as poster boys for Kyoto should have been received as an insult to the committee’s intelligence.

The man with no shame had the committee on the run. Realizing that the USA was in a new political climate, Gore then proceeded to paint the picture of a world in upheaval. Recapping his “Inconvenient Truth” script of melting glaciers, he even pointed out that fires in Greece of 2007 was the result of us spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. He then turned the hurt from the planet to the people by saying that the future of human kind is coming to a close. Making the presentation personal to the committee members he alarmed the room of Democrat and Republican politicians by stating that governments would come to a screeching halt in the wake of this chaos.

This direct attack on the pocketbook of these government employees seemed to hit a cord. Gore then rounded out the presentation by pointing out that it was man’s use of fossil fuels that was keeping us from reducing our carbon footprint. His conclusion was halting the use of fossil fuels at any cost. Like a clip out the “Inconvenient Truth,” Gore probably left the committee in his Ford Grand Marquis.

In true drama queen fashion, Gore failed to point out that no scientific evidence has ever been found to connect man-made CO2 to global warming and climate change.

The sad thing here is that the real threat to the climate in being virtually ignored while spin-doctors like Gore use smoke and mirrors to dazzle money from special interest groups. For just one example, take the “Brown Cloud of Asia.” This poisonous cloud has been hanging over Asia for several years. So large, it is visible from space. Recently, Orjan Gustafson, a bio-geochemist from Stockholm University tested the smoke of the “Brown Cloud of Asia” with a newly developed radiocarbon technique. What he found was that the cloud was made up of particles of organic matter, mostly wood, straw and dung. Recently, the burning of dung and wood was a method of keeping third-world countries in Asia from using fossil fuels for heating and cooking. This inconvenient truth was not part of Gore’s address to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The sad reality is that this cloud is a direct threat to the lives of the woman and children in Asia. While real environmental problems exist, with envious eyes Al Gore stares at Venus across the gulf of space and slowly and surely draws his plans against us.