I was listening to Great Big Seas's song "When I am King", and I got to thinking. Most of my friends know that I have ambitions to lead this country eventually, however maybe it's time to actually put out what I stand for, and let you know what I would do, to coin the Great Big Sea song, when I am king. Feel free to comment, ask questions, or what have you - I'll be happy to answer because in the end, each and every one of you (to my friends) has a place on my team, and to my unknown readership - I'll be answerable to you, so I need to know what you think. I'll be releasing my ideas over the next couple weeks, so please keep checking back in - I value your input.
It's been my long-standing belief that the taxes that we pay are, essentially, an investment in the country by the people, in trust of the government. In the same way that a mutual funds broker, or an investment company is entrusted the funds of it's investors with the aim of maximising the return on that investment, so too, the federal government has a responsibility to the taxpayers to maximise the return on the "investment" of taxes. This is a primary pillar that will be seen throughout any financial policies that a government under my leadership will put forward.
To begin, I'd like to invest in our post-secondary education system - increasing access to higher education for everyone in the country, and rewarding those who are successful who choose to put the skills learned to good use here. On the flip side, it's a poor investment to simply give a free ride to everyone, regardless of whether they manage to succeed or not. Furthermore, expanding an already onerous beaurocracy to manage this "investment" is expensive, as well as being inefficient. So what's the solution?
I'd like to change the extant student loan system to something that rewards success, and repays those who continue to invest in the country for their efforts. I'd like to do it in a fashion that costs the system - you the taxpayers - as little as possible, and ensures a positive benefit. To do this, I'd like to set in place a plan to essentially pay for the first degree/diploma (up to a 5 year maximum timeframe) of all students who successfully graduate any accredited Canadian college or university. How am I going to do this without expanding the beaurocracy, and without allowing those who are not successful to get a free ride through? I'm going to use the existing government student loan system. The government will issue the students enough money for tuition, books, and residence/rent based on whether the student is going part time or full time, based on the location of the institution, and based whether they will be attending for an 8 month year or a 12 month year. Interest will accrue on the loan as usual. Upon graduation (proven), successful students who find full time employment in Canada will have 20% of their loan forgiven every year for 5 years. This time-elapse process will help to ensure that the student remains in the country, and should help solve some of the brain-drain problem as well. Those who are unsuccessful, or who attain employment outside of the country will be made to repay their student loans in full via the usual means. Additional degrees will not be covered. Students who successfully complete a degree/diploma program over a period of more than 5 years will have forgiven the total debt accrued over the first five years of the degree.
How does this policy benefit the taxpayer? The increase in qualified personnel in the country will increase both recreational (and taxable) spending, as well as bring a net increase over the periods of their working lives to their salary (also taxed). To give you an example from personal experience. The degree that I was working towards when I left school was an Engineering degree. At my tuition rates, over the course of a five year degree, the total cost of my degree would be approximately $65000. To be fair, my time-average salary, over a 40 year career, would be approximately $80000 per year. Over 40 years, on the basis of income tax alone (rate of %35 on $80000, I believe), I would pay $1,120,000 in taxes. Negating sales taxes, that's a tidy profit of $1,055,000. In contrast, as an uneducated (no college, no university, no trade-school) person, I could reasonably hope to make an average of $14/hr over a 40 year career, provided I keep the same job for the entirety). That gives a total taxable income over 40 years (40 hrs/wk, 50 wks/yr) of $1,120,000, which, when taxed at a rate of %17 (which I believe is the taxation rate for that bracket), brings in a rousing $190000. Net profit per person (including the cost of a $65000 engineering degree) - of almost $850,000. That money can be further invested in the country, or can be returned directly to the taxpayers through taxation reductions.
Just something to think about.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
End of an era..
The top breaking news story of the day can be only one thing - the official resignation of long-time dictator Fidel Castro from his positions as President of Cuba, and Commander in Chief of that nations armed forces. While this bit of news has been circulating in the rumour mill for quite some time, this time it's actually official, as Castro published his intent openly in Granma, a state-run newspaper. He has publicly named his brother Raul to succeed him. American Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte has said that the trade embargo will not be lifted.
Ultimately, the time has come for Cuba to change. Fidel stood proud over his country for over 50 years, and ruled with an iron fist - standing up to political opposition from the United States, and weathering a crippling trade embargo since the Kennedy administration, and ultimately ruling a nation through the force of his own will and his own fiery rhetoric. It seems funny, in hindsight. I'm not a communist, and hate what Castro stands for, politically, however I also have to admit that I admire the man for his spirit, and for the power of his will. That admiration aside, it's time for a change, but will change come?
The single biggest wildcard in this equation is the person, character, and strength of Raul Castro. This man is, quite frankly, an enigma. The international community does not know him, and yet his power is genuine. The few reports I've read show a man strong in his way, but silent. Not the fiery orator that his brother is, Raul may fall under his brother's shadow, even as his brother retires. On the alternate side is his control over the military, and his problem solving ability. Over the years, it's been Raul who quietly did what needed to be done. Some believe that he will be more pragmatic than his brother on economic reforms, and will bring some much-needed economic changes into the state - including attempts to make friendly with the Americans with the aim of lifting the trade embargo. Others believe that he is more the bloodthirsty revolutionary than his brother - images of his ordering the executions of many of Batista's soldiers during the revolution, and political dissidents thereafter.
So Raul is the wildcard, and he has the choice to make to either set his people free, or keep them repressed. If he frees the people, then he will have broken faith with his brother - or has his brother been breaking faith with him? If he frees the people, Sens. Obama and McCain have both suggested that they would ease the embargo, which would be of huge benefit to Cuba. Alternately, he can maintain the repression that the people have been under since the Batista regime. In doing so, he will validate himself as a revolutionary icon, and prove himself deserving of his brother's confidence. He will, in truth and name, be Fidel's successor. He will also see the American trade embargo continue. I don't envy Raul, but this is the choice he has. Which choice he makes is anyone's guess.
Ultimately, the time has come for Cuba to change. Fidel stood proud over his country for over 50 years, and ruled with an iron fist - standing up to political opposition from the United States, and weathering a crippling trade embargo since the Kennedy administration, and ultimately ruling a nation through the force of his own will and his own fiery rhetoric. It seems funny, in hindsight. I'm not a communist, and hate what Castro stands for, politically, however I also have to admit that I admire the man for his spirit, and for the power of his will. That admiration aside, it's time for a change, but will change come?
The single biggest wildcard in this equation is the person, character, and strength of Raul Castro. This man is, quite frankly, an enigma. The international community does not know him, and yet his power is genuine. The few reports I've read show a man strong in his way, but silent. Not the fiery orator that his brother is, Raul may fall under his brother's shadow, even as his brother retires. On the alternate side is his control over the military, and his problem solving ability. Over the years, it's been Raul who quietly did what needed to be done. Some believe that he will be more pragmatic than his brother on economic reforms, and will bring some much-needed economic changes into the state - including attempts to make friendly with the Americans with the aim of lifting the trade embargo. Others believe that he is more the bloodthirsty revolutionary than his brother - images of his ordering the executions of many of Batista's soldiers during the revolution, and political dissidents thereafter.
So Raul is the wildcard, and he has the choice to make to either set his people free, or keep them repressed. If he frees the people, then he will have broken faith with his brother - or has his brother been breaking faith with him? If he frees the people, Sens. Obama and McCain have both suggested that they would ease the embargo, which would be of huge benefit to Cuba. Alternately, he can maintain the repression that the people have been under since the Batista regime. In doing so, he will validate himself as a revolutionary icon, and prove himself deserving of his brother's confidence. He will, in truth and name, be Fidel's successor. He will also see the American trade embargo continue. I don't envy Raul, but this is the choice he has. Which choice he makes is anyone's guess.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
A continuum.
So after my previous post about the Congressional hearing of Roger Clemens, I have to add a little bit more. One way or the other, one side of the equation is true, and only one side of the equation is true. Either Clemens took performance enhancing drugs, or he did not. Let's look at the testimony one at a time.
Brian McNamee:
As the primary accuser in the Clemens case, McNamee is in an interesting position. He openly admitted to injecting Clemens with performance enhancing drugs - and proceeded to flagrantly lie about some of the circumstances surrounding the whole thing. The only reason that McNamee was believable in his statement that he injected Clemens is the coroborration of Clemens' friends and former teammates Andy Pettite and Chuck Knoblauch. This raises only one question - if McNamee was telling the truth about his role in Clemens' alleged HGH and steroid use, why would lie about the circumstances - particularily in light of the physical evidence surrounding some of the issues (ie: the Canseco barbecue which Clemens definitely did not attend).
Roger Clemens:
The only defendant in this issue is the reputation of former major league pitcher, Roger Clemens. Clemens spent his day in court denying all allegations of the use of performance enhancing drugs, and calling McNamee a liar in everything but name. Truthfully, for one short period, Clemens was believable. McNamee's testimony was highly suspect, his credibility doubly so. With the exception of the one significant problem with his deposition that I mentioned and commented on earlier, Clemens was a believable witness. Except for Andy Pettite and his wifes despective depositions.
Andy Pettite:
Clemens' friend and former teammate gave a deposition in which he stated bluntly that Clemens admitted use of performance enhancing drugs to him. Clemens responded by arguing that Pettite had mis-heard him. Mistakes happen, right? Not according to Mrs. Pettite in this case. In her sworn deposition, she said that Andy had told her of his conversations with Clemens which corroborated McNamee's story. So again, I ask what cause Pettite would have to lie to authorities in order to harm Clemens - his friend? Obviously, there is no reason I can see. More damning still is that when posed the same question by Congress, Clemens had no reason either, saying Pettite must have misheard him, or misunderstood, or misremembered. This defense, sadly, the more it is repeated, the less believable it is, as, given the closeness of the friendship between the two, such a conversation would likely have led to others for clarification, or simply continued discussion? Further causing problems for this defense is the deposition of Mrs. Pettite.
Mrs. Pettite:
Has the regrettable role of playing the hangman for Clemens in this issue. Her deposition is simple - that her husband, Andy, had recounted to her conversations with Clemens in which Andy said Clemens admitted to the use of performance enhancing substances. In backing up her husband's deposition, she does, assuming that she's telling the truth, confirm that Pettite believed Clemens said that he personally was taking performance enhancers. The only reason for Mrs. Pettite to lie in this case would be to back up her husband. To lie in a congressional deposition when a simple "I don't know anything" would have been sufficient is beyond stupid, and so there is no reason to assume that she would have done so.
All that taken into consideration, a small part of me wants to believe that Clemens is clean. That said, however, the responsibility of a realist is to take idealistic ideas like that and destroy them. As such, barring further evidence to call into question the depositions of at least one of Andy and Mrs. Pettite, I have no choice but to believe them - meaning that I cannot believe Clemens, no matter how much I would like to be able to. That said, I truly hope that some such evidence comes to light.
Brian McNamee:
As the primary accuser in the Clemens case, McNamee is in an interesting position. He openly admitted to injecting Clemens with performance enhancing drugs - and proceeded to flagrantly lie about some of the circumstances surrounding the whole thing. The only reason that McNamee was believable in his statement that he injected Clemens is the coroborration of Clemens' friends and former teammates Andy Pettite and Chuck Knoblauch. This raises only one question - if McNamee was telling the truth about his role in Clemens' alleged HGH and steroid use, why would lie about the circumstances - particularily in light of the physical evidence surrounding some of the issues (ie: the Canseco barbecue which Clemens definitely did not attend).
Roger Clemens:
The only defendant in this issue is the reputation of former major league pitcher, Roger Clemens. Clemens spent his day in court denying all allegations of the use of performance enhancing drugs, and calling McNamee a liar in everything but name. Truthfully, for one short period, Clemens was believable. McNamee's testimony was highly suspect, his credibility doubly so. With the exception of the one significant problem with his deposition that I mentioned and commented on earlier, Clemens was a believable witness. Except for Andy Pettite and his wifes despective depositions.
Andy Pettite:
Clemens' friend and former teammate gave a deposition in which he stated bluntly that Clemens admitted use of performance enhancing drugs to him. Clemens responded by arguing that Pettite had mis-heard him. Mistakes happen, right? Not according to Mrs. Pettite in this case. In her sworn deposition, she said that Andy had told her of his conversations with Clemens which corroborated McNamee's story. So again, I ask what cause Pettite would have to lie to authorities in order to harm Clemens - his friend? Obviously, there is no reason I can see. More damning still is that when posed the same question by Congress, Clemens had no reason either, saying Pettite must have misheard him, or misunderstood, or misremembered. This defense, sadly, the more it is repeated, the less believable it is, as, given the closeness of the friendship between the two, such a conversation would likely have led to others for clarification, or simply continued discussion? Further causing problems for this defense is the deposition of Mrs. Pettite.
Mrs. Pettite:
Has the regrettable role of playing the hangman for Clemens in this issue. Her deposition is simple - that her husband, Andy, had recounted to her conversations with Clemens in which Andy said Clemens admitted to the use of performance enhancing substances. In backing up her husband's deposition, she does, assuming that she's telling the truth, confirm that Pettite believed Clemens said that he personally was taking performance enhancers. The only reason for Mrs. Pettite to lie in this case would be to back up her husband. To lie in a congressional deposition when a simple "I don't know anything" would have been sufficient is beyond stupid, and so there is no reason to assume that she would have done so.
All that taken into consideration, a small part of me wants to believe that Clemens is clean. That said, however, the responsibility of a realist is to take idealistic ideas like that and destroy them. As such, barring further evidence to call into question the depositions of at least one of Andy and Mrs. Pettite, I have no choice but to believe them - meaning that I cannot believe Clemens, no matter how much I would like to be able to. That said, I truly hope that some such evidence comes to light.
Innocent? Guilty? Juiced? Who cares?
In light of the latest gong-show about to unfold in Washington D.C. later this week, I guess I should give my two cents. First of all, I'm one of the few idealists who actually is prepared to give Roger the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying I think he's innocent, I'm just saying that I don't think he's guilty - at least not because Brian McNamee and Sen. George Mitchell say so.
With this in mind, the stage is set for the Rocket, and his former personal trainer to duke it out on Capitol Hill. Only one of the two will be left standing. The question becomes "whom". On one side is former personal trainer Brian McNamee. He comes to the table bringing mostly strong rhetoric. He said he injected Clemens. Clemens said he was never injected with any performance enhancing drugs. If that was all there was to the issue, then, while it wouldn't necessarily go away, it would certainly not make for very interesting argument. He also claims to have old needles, kept for five years, which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt Clemens' guilt. While I'm prepared to admit that Clemens' DNA may be on the needle, and I'm even prepared to admit that there will be HGH, or some other performance enhancing drug, on the needle somewhere. I'm very suspicious as to why someone would keep a used needle from something like that for as long as Mr. McNamee claims to have kept it. Were that the only evidence that McNamee brought to the table, this trial would be neither compelling, nor would it be anything other than a cake walk. Where this trial gets interesting is with the addition of a deposition from Clemens' close friend and former teammate, Andy Pettite. A deposition which clearly states that Clemens admitted to Pettite using HGH. As far as I know, and, from the words of Clemens as seen on CNN's live coverage of the trial, as far as he knows, Pettite has no reason to lie. Clemens argued that Pettite misunderstood, or misheard him during these conversations. I would like to believe that Clemens is telling the truth. That said, Pettite's wife has also submitted an affidavit affirming that Pettite told her of the conversations with Clemens - conversations affirming what Pettite's deposition said.
On Clemens' side is another interesting twist. A BBQ hosted by Clemens former teammate, Jose Canseco - a barbecue where McNamee allegedly was first approached by Clemens for performance enhancing drugs. A BBQ that Clemens, by every single piece of evidence that has been brought forward, including affidavits from host, Jose Canseco and others, never attended. While McNamee holds by his testimony that he saw Clemens at the barbecue, the evidence seems to disagree with McNamee. Given this, it calls into question both McNamee's credibility, and also where McNamee actually WAS approached by Clemens - if he was at all.
Both Clemens and McNamee have shown some credibility issues. McNamee has lied to investigators, lied to the press and openly lied to congress in light of physical evidence. Clemens changed the story in his official deposition regarding discussions with McNamee about HGH. First he said that he never had discussions with McNamee on the subject, and then said that, upon discovery that his wife had injected HGH, he had conversation with McNamee then. To be fair to Clemens, he isn't a lawyer, and he isn't a politician. Most people, when asked that question, would try to answer truthfully in a personal context - and wouldn't think to answer in the context of dealing with another party - even their wife. In this, I'm prepared to accept Clemens' response to the question from the House Committee on this discrepancy that he was answering the question truthfully, but in context of personal use, and prior to his wife's usage. I do not believe this indicates dishonesty on Clemens' part, but simply his being not used to Congressional questioning.
At this point, the hearing is unfolding before my eyes, and I do not know what will unfold. However I do not believe that conclusive evidence will be put forward proving Clemens' guilt. What saddens me the most is that this small fact is irrelevant. Whether Clemens' guilt is proven or not, or even if he is proven innocent, there is nothing to be done to repair the man's reputation. If he is proven guilty, then this is entirely deserved. If, however, as I expect, Clemens can not be proven guilty one way or the other, the damage has been done. One more celebrity crucifixion in the national media, and in the hearts of fans. I only hope that people will rise above the inclination to condemn without proof of guilt, allow Clemens and others like him to retire, properly recognized for the achievements of their careers. Clemens, and other deserving players should be given their day in Cooperstown. I hope he's innocent. But more than that, I wish it would matter whether he was.
With this in mind, the stage is set for the Rocket, and his former personal trainer to duke it out on Capitol Hill. Only one of the two will be left standing. The question becomes "whom". On one side is former personal trainer Brian McNamee. He comes to the table bringing mostly strong rhetoric. He said he injected Clemens. Clemens said he was never injected with any performance enhancing drugs. If that was all there was to the issue, then, while it wouldn't necessarily go away, it would certainly not make for very interesting argument. He also claims to have old needles, kept for five years, which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt Clemens' guilt. While I'm prepared to admit that Clemens' DNA may be on the needle, and I'm even prepared to admit that there will be HGH, or some other performance enhancing drug, on the needle somewhere. I'm very suspicious as to why someone would keep a used needle from something like that for as long as Mr. McNamee claims to have kept it. Were that the only evidence that McNamee brought to the table, this trial would be neither compelling, nor would it be anything other than a cake walk. Where this trial gets interesting is with the addition of a deposition from Clemens' close friend and former teammate, Andy Pettite. A deposition which clearly states that Clemens admitted to Pettite using HGH. As far as I know, and, from the words of Clemens as seen on CNN's live coverage of the trial, as far as he knows, Pettite has no reason to lie. Clemens argued that Pettite misunderstood, or misheard him during these conversations. I would like to believe that Clemens is telling the truth. That said, Pettite's wife has also submitted an affidavit affirming that Pettite told her of the conversations with Clemens - conversations affirming what Pettite's deposition said.
On Clemens' side is another interesting twist. A BBQ hosted by Clemens former teammate, Jose Canseco - a barbecue where McNamee allegedly was first approached by Clemens for performance enhancing drugs. A BBQ that Clemens, by every single piece of evidence that has been brought forward, including affidavits from host, Jose Canseco and others, never attended. While McNamee holds by his testimony that he saw Clemens at the barbecue, the evidence seems to disagree with McNamee. Given this, it calls into question both McNamee's credibility, and also where McNamee actually WAS approached by Clemens - if he was at all.
Both Clemens and McNamee have shown some credibility issues. McNamee has lied to investigators, lied to the press and openly lied to congress in light of physical evidence. Clemens changed the story in his official deposition regarding discussions with McNamee about HGH. First he said that he never had discussions with McNamee on the subject, and then said that, upon discovery that his wife had injected HGH, he had conversation with McNamee then. To be fair to Clemens, he isn't a lawyer, and he isn't a politician. Most people, when asked that question, would try to answer truthfully in a personal context - and wouldn't think to answer in the context of dealing with another party - even their wife. In this, I'm prepared to accept Clemens' response to the question from the House Committee on this discrepancy that he was answering the question truthfully, but in context of personal use, and prior to his wife's usage. I do not believe this indicates dishonesty on Clemens' part, but simply his being not used to Congressional questioning.
At this point, the hearing is unfolding before my eyes, and I do not know what will unfold. However I do not believe that conclusive evidence will be put forward proving Clemens' guilt. What saddens me the most is that this small fact is irrelevant. Whether Clemens' guilt is proven or not, or even if he is proven innocent, there is nothing to be done to repair the man's reputation. If he is proven guilty, then this is entirely deserved. If, however, as I expect, Clemens can not be proven guilty one way or the other, the damage has been done. One more celebrity crucifixion in the national media, and in the hearts of fans. I only hope that people will rise above the inclination to condemn without proof of guilt, allow Clemens and others like him to retire, properly recognized for the achievements of their careers. Clemens, and other deserving players should be given their day in Cooperstown. I hope he's innocent. But more than that, I wish it would matter whether he was.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
The right to privacy
In the five seconds it's taken you to read so far, someone, somewhere has posted a video on Youtube. Quite likey, this video is enough to make the person in the video look like a jackass. Slightly less likely, this video could be one of the growing number of YouTube series that have seemingly taken over the internet. In all likelihood, the video is harmless. Every so often, though, a video comes across the internet that, while it may not have a darker purpose, may certainly have far darker effects. In the case of one particular video, those effects can cost a man his reputation.
The video I refer to is the short-lived video allegedly depicting Mets superstar Pedro Martinez taking part in a cockfight in his home country of the Dominican Republic. This is not a condemnation of Martinez, nor is a condemnation of cockfighting. There are enough of those floating around the internet that adding one more doesn't make a great degree of sense. Furthermore, I don't condemn Martinez - his life, his time, his decision of how he spends it. Cockfighting is a legal and accepted aspect of Dominican culture - we find it barbaric, but who are we to judge? What I'm here to condemn instead are the people in the media - both the professional journalists, as well as the amateurs like myself who post to blogs, or post to Youtube - for invading the private life of an individual.
Ultimately, whether Martinez participated in a cockfight is immaterial. I don't know whether he did - I wasn't there, I never saw the Youtube video and, to be completely honest, I don't care. That being said, however, there is another, more important question that I have to ask myself: namely, "Is it my business?". The answer, if I look deep into my soul and answer honestly, is no.
So why, then, is it being reported on. Obviously, the professional journalist argues that the public wants to know, and that the public has an innate RIGHT to know. Were this issue to be something that actually has an effect on the population, I would agree with this argument. This is not such an issue. It's a case of one individual using his own time, in his own country, to engage one way or the other in a passtime that is not just legal, but is a cultural norm in that country. This is not the business of the general public.
Furthermore, what of the consequences? Should a man guilty of no crime be punished because of his actions? Most rational men would suggest that such an action would be an abberration of justice - yet this is precisely what some animal rights activist groups are suggesting. Martinez' alleged actions were not illegal, and were not opposed to any sort of code of conduct required from his contract with the New York Mets, and yet it's been suggested by some that a harsh suspension should be enacted against him - on the basis of a Youtube video, and a profession that deems the invasion of privacy to be a valid passtime in the name of filling public curiosity.
The damage to individual's reputations, however, are not the most severe reprecussions of this sort of journalism. This time last year, we saw a different victim of the same: Michael Vick. Again, let me say that I do not speak to Mr. Vick's innocence or guilt, but only of facts. Vick's rights as a defendant in a criminal trial were flagrantly violated the minute that the uproar in the media over his actions began. Every defendant in a criminal trial is guaranteed the right to appear before an unbiased and objective jury of their peers. In many cases, this right results in the sequestration of the jury prior to trial to ensure that the media cannot influence their decisions. In Vick's case, I ask where this was even possible. Every potential juror in the United States had ready access to the facts (and suppositions) of the case, as well as the commentary. Most declared Vick to be guilty before the formality of the trial had even commenced. This isn't a trial by impartial jury, it's a trial by media. A trial as was never envisioned by the Founding Fathers of the United States, nor by the Fathers of Confederation here in Canada. A trial as is not sanctioned by law. A trial that is the equivalent of the gladitorial trials as were done in ancient Rome. A trial that is, definitionally, an abberration of justice.
In conclusion I ask only this - that we remember that our nation is built on foundations of equality of man, human rights (including the right to privacy), and justice for all. Perhaps it's time for our media to remember the same.
The video I refer to is the short-lived video allegedly depicting Mets superstar Pedro Martinez taking part in a cockfight in his home country of the Dominican Republic. This is not a condemnation of Martinez, nor is a condemnation of cockfighting. There are enough of those floating around the internet that adding one more doesn't make a great degree of sense. Furthermore, I don't condemn Martinez - his life, his time, his decision of how he spends it. Cockfighting is a legal and accepted aspect of Dominican culture - we find it barbaric, but who are we to judge? What I'm here to condemn instead are the people in the media - both the professional journalists, as well as the amateurs like myself who post to blogs, or post to Youtube - for invading the private life of an individual.
Ultimately, whether Martinez participated in a cockfight is immaterial. I don't know whether he did - I wasn't there, I never saw the Youtube video and, to be completely honest, I don't care. That being said, however, there is another, more important question that I have to ask myself: namely, "Is it my business?". The answer, if I look deep into my soul and answer honestly, is no.
So why, then, is it being reported on. Obviously, the professional journalist argues that the public wants to know, and that the public has an innate RIGHT to know. Were this issue to be something that actually has an effect on the population, I would agree with this argument. This is not such an issue. It's a case of one individual using his own time, in his own country, to engage one way or the other in a passtime that is not just legal, but is a cultural norm in that country. This is not the business of the general public.
Furthermore, what of the consequences? Should a man guilty of no crime be punished because of his actions? Most rational men would suggest that such an action would be an abberration of justice - yet this is precisely what some animal rights activist groups are suggesting. Martinez' alleged actions were not illegal, and were not opposed to any sort of code of conduct required from his contract with the New York Mets, and yet it's been suggested by some that a harsh suspension should be enacted against him - on the basis of a Youtube video, and a profession that deems the invasion of privacy to be a valid passtime in the name of filling public curiosity.
The damage to individual's reputations, however, are not the most severe reprecussions of this sort of journalism. This time last year, we saw a different victim of the same: Michael Vick. Again, let me say that I do not speak to Mr. Vick's innocence or guilt, but only of facts. Vick's rights as a defendant in a criminal trial were flagrantly violated the minute that the uproar in the media over his actions began. Every defendant in a criminal trial is guaranteed the right to appear before an unbiased and objective jury of their peers. In many cases, this right results in the sequestration of the jury prior to trial to ensure that the media cannot influence their decisions. In Vick's case, I ask where this was even possible. Every potential juror in the United States had ready access to the facts (and suppositions) of the case, as well as the commentary. Most declared Vick to be guilty before the formality of the trial had even commenced. This isn't a trial by impartial jury, it's a trial by media. A trial as was never envisioned by the Founding Fathers of the United States, nor by the Fathers of Confederation here in Canada. A trial as is not sanctioned by law. A trial that is the equivalent of the gladitorial trials as were done in ancient Rome. A trial that is, definitionally, an abberration of justice.
In conclusion I ask only this - that we remember that our nation is built on foundations of equality of man, human rights (including the right to privacy), and justice for all. Perhaps it's time for our media to remember the same.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
In conclusion...
So I've returned to the land of ice, snow, cold, and generally shitty winter weather also known as Canada. I'm safe, sound, disease free, and generally had a good time. That said, there are some lessons that should be passed on:
Beers discovered:
Presidente (Dominican Rep.) - Good the first time. Also good served at minus 5. Otherwise...
Bohemia (Dominican Rep.) - Definitely does NOT to justice to it's namesake - no self respecting Bohemian would drink this swill.
Prestige (Haiti) - First lager I've ever tried that tastes as good luke-warm as it does cold. Just for the record, it tastes good cold.
Liquors Discovered:
Brugal Anejo (Dominican Rep.) - The Dominican Republic's answer to Lambs amber. Tastes about as bad too. This doesn't even go down well with coke.
Brugal Extra Viejo (Domincan Rep.) - A significant upgrade over the Anejo, goes very well with coke, and can be drank straight up as well.
Barbancourt Reserve Speciale (Haiti) - Aged 8 years in oak barrels, quite bluntly, this rum kicks ass - and I don't like rum.
Everything else has already been covered previously. Read it if you want.
Anyhow, that concludes the public version of my trip. Keep checking in, as I'll update as regularily as there's an interesting story to tell, or I feel like voicing my (intelligent, witty, and valuable) opinion on something. Te Salut.
Beers discovered:
Presidente (Dominican Rep.) - Good the first time. Also good served at minus 5. Otherwise...
Bohemia (Dominican Rep.) - Definitely does NOT to justice to it's namesake - no self respecting Bohemian would drink this swill.
Prestige (Haiti) - First lager I've ever tried that tastes as good luke-warm as it does cold. Just for the record, it tastes good cold.
Liquors Discovered:
Brugal Anejo (Dominican Rep.) - The Dominican Republic's answer to Lambs amber. Tastes about as bad too. This doesn't even go down well with coke.
Brugal Extra Viejo (Domincan Rep.) - A significant upgrade over the Anejo, goes very well with coke, and can be drank straight up as well.
Barbancourt Reserve Speciale (Haiti) - Aged 8 years in oak barrels, quite bluntly, this rum kicks ass - and I don't like rum.
Everything else has already been covered previously. Read it if you want.
Anyhow, that concludes the public version of my trip. Keep checking in, as I'll update as regularily as there's an interesting story to tell, or I feel like voicing my (intelligent, witty, and valuable) opinion on something. Te Salut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
