Canada's Unrecognized Contribution

Media groups rarely recognize Canada's contributions to global issues. The contributions may not always be as large as some nations, but they are nonetheless important and it is high time this country gets some attention. The recent coverage of NATO's decision to approve a no-fly zone over Libya is a case in point.

A recent article by the New York Time's about NATO's approval of a no-fly zone over Libya did not mention Canada's role in the event. Their article mentions only Britain and France, as in the opening paragraph of: "The United States, Britain and France pushed forward against Libya on Friday as they declared that a cease-fire abruptly announced by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government was not enough, at least for now, to ward off military action against his forces." (New York Times). French forces currently have an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean which houses some 40 aircraft which could be used for this operation, but no exact number of aircraft or specific resources have been committed by France as of yet (Miami Herald). The US involvement is circumscribed only to the talks within NATO and supporting of various sanctions. There are no plans for the US military to support this mission in the form of troops or in leading the mission (Miami  Herald). However, the US "would provide "unique capabilities" to enable European partners to enforce no-fly zone, Obama said, and experts predicted that could include providing command and control, intelligence, surveillance and search-and-rescue functions" (Miami Herald).

Canadian CF-18

The Canadian newspaper, The Globe and Mail, had this to say about Canada's involvement: "Canada will send six CF-18s, last in action in 1999 as they bombed Serb positions to protect the Albanians of Kosovo." This contribution may not be as large as some nations, such as the UK's who "according to David Cameron... [deployed] Tornados and Typhoon aircraft, as well as air-to-air refuelling and surveillance aircraft" (BBC News). Similar to France's commitment, Great Britain has not yet committed an exact number of aircraft. It is then interesting that Canada has provided an exact number. Regardless, Canada has been heavily involved in the NATO talks and are contributing resources in an effort to halt the violence in Libya. This stands as yet another example of Canada's involvement on the world stage being completely ignored by foreign and particularly American media sources.

All articles published on-line, March 18th, 2011

NYT article: Allies Press Libya, Saying Declaration of Cease-Fire Is Not Enough http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19libya.html?_r=1&hp

Miami Herald: Obama Vows US Role in Libya will be Limited

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/18/2122564/obama-vows-us-role-in-libya-will.html

G&M article: Canada joins UN call for military action in Libya. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/canada-joins-un-call-for-military-action-in-libya/article1945738/

BBC News article: Libya 'to halt military action'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12782642

Rethinking the Mundane

Not enough people reconsider what is taken for granted. Take for instance a commuter train. How much has truly changed about a commuter train in the past 100 years? I would say not much, especially not much in the way of revolutionary changes.

I, and others, would argue that it is the mundane and matter of fact aspects of materials and life that should be questioned in order for society to evolve. All too often changes in society occur in minute aspects of our technology and culture. For instance, how we light our houses has not changed all that radically for we still use an object that looks remarkably similar to the traditional light bulb and affix it in all too common places within our dwellings that would not be unlike that of a home say 100 years ago. How we light our homes has not changed, but small aspects of the technology have.

Returning to commuter trains, I look to three aspects that could be changed. These aspects are in different orders of scale and none have answers; often I find it more productive and difficult to pose a question than an answer, for at least an answer can generate a dialogue that did not previously exist.

The first aspect is how a train travels. The triplet form of traveling consists of ground, water, and air. These are exclusive from one another and presuppose us into thinking there are not other forms. Instead of asking how we can make an engine go faster or a route be streamlined to increase a train's efficiency, why not look to another way it can travel. Is there a fourth way to travel? By looking at this issue, the feasibility and possibility of traveling greater distances and over more difficult terrain and conditions can be lessened. Further, my hope and wish for trains (speaking of commuter not commercial trains) to be used in connecting Canadian cities may become more realistic as much of the Canadian countryside can be rough and the cities are widely spread apart.

The second question is how people fit into the train. In the city in which I reside the commuter trains are often packed, leaving a few unfortunate stragglers behind to wait for (hopefully) the next less full train. In response to this perceived problem, can people fit into a train in such a way that there is more room for other people? This problem asks if people currently ride a train via the most efficient way. The two ways currently employed is to either sit or stand. Passenger trains that go long distances have cots, or so I've seen in movies. This would be a third way to 'fit into a train', but are there other ways?

Lastly, people enter trains through rectangular doors that are evenly spaced across the facade of a train. However, is this the only way people can enter a train? Do the doors have to be placed in such a way and can they take a different shape? Often I see a bottleneck form as people furiously try to get into the train before it departs. Can the doors be rearranged or reshaped to prevent such bottlenecks? The reduction of these bottlenecks would decrease the time it takes for a train to reach its destination as the time required for passengers to board is now reduced.

I must reiterate that I do not have the answers to these questions. It is not folly either to offer a question and no answer. Exercises such as these aid in people noting the issues in their world that can be improved upon; to be tinkered with. It is through such actions that realizations occur and motivations are sprung into working towards finding answers to such new found problems. I feel that these exercises of thought are not encouraged in our school systems and places of work. Instead, children and adults are bombarded by questions that demand answers and a study that produces only more questions is deemed a failure. This is not the case and such thoughts should be discouraged. Instead, challenge yourself to look at issues and items taken for granted in new ways. View the world from the perspective of an outsider and ask it basic questions. Otherwise, we will only be wishing for change and producing nothing but the same in a different color.

Dan Aykroyd & the Crystal Skull

Dan Aykroyd is touring Canada. As a Canadian senior citizen who has recently left Hollywood you might picture Aykroyd driving across Canada in a shiny Winnebago. Instead, Aykroyd is touring Canadian liquor stores to promote his line of alcohol, namely Crystal Skull Vodka.

(Dan Aykryod holding a bottle
of his Crystal Skull vodka)

This is not the first time Aykroyd has been associated with alcohol. Prior to him becoming an international comedic star, Aykroyd worked at a speakeasy in Toronto where he illegally sold alcohol to cops, cabbies, and other walks of life (a). Following his successful movie and TV career Aykroyd became part owner of The House of Blues. From there he began to realize that there was something missing in the alcohol market in his native land of Canada -tequila. Aykroyd partnered with Patron and began distributing their tequila in liquor stores throughout Canada (a,b). Following that, Aykroyd began promoting his own wine and vodka. With vodka, he again realized that there was something missing. This something missing was how most vodka was made by adding the alcohol before the preservatives. Aykroyd's vodka instead adds the alcohol after the preservatives, allowing the taste of the vodka to be showcased -though I myself have yet to try it.

An aspect of Aykroyd's career in hollywood is that he has been fascinated by unexplained phenomena. Most people know Aykroyd for his role in Ghostbusters, but he has also been involved in other sci-fi related shows like "PSI Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal". This interest in the unexplained has continued with the packaging of his vodka inside glass skulls, which are based on the Inca's 'mystical' crystal skulls. The vodka bottles look great, and because of this the Ontario liquor board (LCBO) has band them: “The image of the human skull is the thing that’s really problematic for us,” LCBO spokesman Chris Layton told the Globe. “That’s an image that’s commonly associated with death. It’s especially problematic at a time when there are concerns around binge drinking by younger adults, which in some cases, unfortunately, has resulted in alcohol poisoning.” (from link 'c' below). However, there are a number of other alcohol bottles with other shapes that are just as attractive, such as a tequila bottle from a rival company shaped like a tommy gun (above right)!

Upon discovering that Aykroyd was appearing at local Canadian liquor stores, Michelle, Andrew, and myself all drove to the downtown Calgary Coop liquor store on a Saturday morning. We entered the close-to-full parking lot that had zero signage of the event. I quickly wondered whether we had the correct location, but the moment we entered the store we saw a line that began at the door. The line was not exceptionally long as the store was quite small but it still took almost an hour to get through it. Everyone in line was excited to meet him and everyone had at least one bottle of his alcohol in their arms. A store clerk walked around the narrow isles with a tray of Patron chocolate tequila in hand. Small plastic cups with 1/2 an ounce of this wonderful liquor treat was consumed by all and I highly recommend it; in retrospect you would think the LCBO would ban something like this tequila instead of the vodka bottle.


Personally, I wore a Ghostbusters shirt. Plenty of people brought with them their favorite Aykroyd DVD's for him to autograph and one person even dressed up like a Ghostbuster! Aykroyd was a true gentlemen and pleasure to meet, although to my chagrin he didn't seem to notice my shirt. Nonetheless, he did not rush people out the door but instead took time to shake everyone's hand and speak to them. He was genuinely interested in being there as he posed for photographs, talked in the voice of the Coneheads, and left the table at one point to shake hands and take a photo with the local law enforcement (above left). Aykroyd might have been so genuine because he is entering a new career and one that he has considerable freedom and control in. He has recently said that he has partially left Hollywood because he is more interested in creating film concepts but is repeatedly turned away by studio execs because he is labeled 'too old' (b).

Our little group's encounter with the celebrity was enhanced because of our witnessing of how he treated everyone before us. It made the entire experience that more memorable. The autographed wine bottles and skull vodka will definitely find a special spot on the shelves and act as a conversation piece, but the chance to meet Aykroyd was even more special. If you too have a chance to meet Aykroyd at a Canadian liquor store, do so! It is as the photo of us says, 'Simply Perfect'!

For more information:

(a)http://www.leaderpost.com/Comedian+Aykroyd+Regina+hawking+alcohol/3519743/story.html and (b): http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/aykroyd-swaps-hollywood-for-alcohol_1061162 and: (c): http://www.torontolife.com/daily/daily-dish/bottoms/2010/05/20/lcbo-bans-dan-aykroyds-cool-looking-vodka-filled-skull/

and for the truth behind the crystal skulls, check out this decent article by Archaeology Magazine:
http://www.archaeology.org/0805/etc/indy.html

Canada Elects

The Canadian election is over and the Conservative Party of Canada has won, but produced a minority government. I have been thinking throughout this election of just how many people would vote. It always seemed like no one voted. So I've added up the numbers of how many votes the parties received and compared it to Stats Canada figures.


10,562,956 people voted in this election. The conservative government received 5,204,468 votes that resulted in a win of 143 seats out of a possible 308 seats. This means it took 49.27% of the people who voted to provide us with a minority government (for non-Canadians, there were three other parties who won seats in the house of commons and a plethora of smaller parties who did not win any seats but still campaigned and received votes).


The population of Canada was 33,311,400 as of July 1st, 2008. That provides an average of 31.7% of Canadians actually turning out to the polls. But wait, that is the total population that includes people who are not old enough to vote. The breakdowns I could find from Stats Canada were not too specific, but according to their charts for 2001, there were roughly 8 million people under the age required to vote. If you pop that number into the equation than the percentage of people voting jumps to 71.6%. That is a lot by any standard!

I'm not a statistician, but these numbers are likely very close. What is important here is that I was wrong in my earlier opinions that people don't vote in Canada. They do. The Conservative Party won, and people voted for them. My problem -which is not discussed here- is that Canada is voting locally for a federal leader. The Bloc Party SHOULD NOT be allowed to run in a federal election. How is it just that Quebecers vote for a provincial party that has no input in the matters of other provinces and yet their same votes affect the outcome of a federal election that all other provinces vote in! If the Bloc did not run in these federal elections the Conservative Party would still have won. I am fine with that because the majority of Canadians voted for them. I believe in the democratic system. BUT I do not agree with groups that CANNOT run federally still compete against federal parties in provincial ridings.