Whats not to Love??!!

Maclean's annual How the World Sees Canada poll shows deep admiration for a country we don't seem to like so much ourselves. I am not sure why this is the case. Why don’t we like ourselves, there is a lot to loike. Sure there are some aspects that are less than happy to be proud of. These exist in every country.

People from China and England, India and Mexico converged in a Canadian courtroom, and the Citizenship Judge Shinder Purewal presiding. Granting people Candadian citizenship.

It is a growing consensus that Canadians are amoung the most well like people around the world. Why is this?? Well I guess only these people new to Canada can explain. In reading the article in McLean’s, it appears that the only poor aspects of Canadians is out of their control. Such things as high taxes deter American from liking this country. People who come from warmer climates, find the Canadian winters shocking to say the least.

Candians are a very inventaive race. For example, all of the following items have been invented by Canadians:) 911 cpr dummy 2)anti-gravity suit 3) basketball 4) the chocolate bar 5) electric cooking range 6) electric wheelchair 7) electron microscope 8) five pin bowling 9) football goal post with a single base 10) fuller brush 11) ginger ale 12) green garbage bag 13) green ink 14) hydrofoil boat 15) Imax film format 16) insulin 17) java programming language 18) jolly jumper 19) kerosene 20) light bulb 21) McIntosh apple 22) news print 23) pablum 24) pacemaker 25) paint roller 26) panoramic camera 27) snow blower 28) snowmobile 29) standard time 30) superman 31) synchronized swimming 32) telegraph 33) telephone 34) trivial pursuit 35) velcro 36) walkie-talkie 37) zipper38) CanadaArm 39) HOCKEY!!!!

Cultural Diversity



Canadians helped bridged by volunteer groups from both society at large and from specific ethnocultural groups for newly arriving immigrants. Language training, translation services, information on government programs and other services for new Canadians were offered by volunteers, many of them affiliated with religious organizations.

Today, volunteering continues be actively involved with immigrants. A wide variety of voluntary groups across the country help immi- grants make the difficult adjustment to a new country, by addressing their immediate needs and longer-range needs for successful integration into our society.

These groups help new Canadians understand many aspects of Canadian life, from filing income tax returns to civic responsibilities. They teach English or French; they help with immigration problems; they offer orientation and training to help with job searches. They also work to increase cross-cultural understanding and to eliminate racism in our society.


In addition, volunteers give people from all backgrounds the opportunity to deal with common social, cultural and economic concerns. While some public funding may be available for certain activities, these organizations rely on dedicated volunteers to help meet real needs.

Candians advocate for social change to ensure equality of rights and opportunities for Canadians of all origins and other countries.

Around the Globe

Helping developing countries

A rich nation, Canada began undertaking the obligation of helping poor or disaster-stricken countries just after the Second World War. Beginning with postwar reconstruction in Europe, Canada developed programs of international aid and social development that are respected around the world.


In the years immediately following the Second World War, a number of relief and refugee agencies were established in Canada. Many of these served primarily as fundraising branches of foreign charities, usually British or American: CARE (originally the Committee for American Relief in Europe), Foster Parents' Plan and WorldVision are just a few.

When Catastrophe Strikes

Canada helps in disaster and emergency relief

In the 1940’s a large explosion that wrecked a giant grain-storage elevator in Port Arthur, killing twenty people and trapping many injured workers.

Whenever a Canadian community is struck by catastrophe, a host of volunteers arrives on the scene, ready to provide crucial assistance to the victims and to bring order out of chaos.


Volunteer fire departments remain an integral part of many smaller communities and assist in other countries when they are needed. In Canada today, there are approximately 94,000 trained volunteer firefighters 80 per cent of the country's firefighting forces. Many of these volunteer firefighters also take part in search and rescue operations. For example with the Wild fires in California, thousands of Canadian emergency worker aided in helping battle the blaze.

In times of disaster, victims also receive support and encouragement from many other volunteers in local community and religious groups. Private pilots undertake search and rescue operations; amateur radio operators provide vital communication links, and some are on continuous alert for sudden, unpredictable changes in the weather. As well, many people who have not previously been associated with such volunteer groups turn out to be willing and eager to help.



Today, Canadian society's attitudes favour greater acceptance of disabled persons in mainstream society in areas such as education, housing and employment. Disabled persons are being taken out of institutions and returned to their homes and communities. Disabled children are being integrated into their community schools and, in some cases, even into regular classrooms.


Canada's history has been marked by dramatic changes in our society and its institutions. Yet the irrepressible dedication of Canadian volunteers to the shared task of improving our life together, evident from earliest times, has remained constant.

The traditional Canadian qualities of concern for fellow citizens and commitment to causes have taken new forms as we tackle present-day challenges and chart our course for the 21st Century. Indeed, the willingness to help has always been a fundamental Canadian value of a caring and democratic society.

Tasers?? Should they be legal for ANYONE?

I thought the days of the Wild West were over. Those were the days that you could shot first and ask question later. In this case, the Vancouver airport was transformed into a seen of an old Clint Eastwood movie. Canadian Royal Mounted Police were widely criticized on Friday for using stun guns on an unarmed Mr. Dziekanski, who collapsed and died after being stunned and restrained, all displayed in a graphic 10-minute video.

Mr. was in the airport for many hours before he was “Stunned” on Oct. 14. He spoke no English.

Moments after being stunned, three or four officers pinned Robert Dziekanski to the ground as he screamed in pain. One officer placed his knees against Mr. Dziekanski's back and neck until the 40-year-old went limp. This is absolutely unacceptable. Limp, meaning the life had been drained out of him!

Meanwhile, Mr. Pritchard, taped the entire ordeal.
At the request of police, he gave them the video on the understanding the RCMP would return it immediately. When they then refused to give it back, he launched court action. Police returned it last week. Why would they refuse to give it back, did they have something shameful to hide? I think so!

Dziekanski, who came to Canada to live with his mother in BC mistakenly waited for her in the baggage area rather than passing through the customs section to enter the main part of Vancouver's airport. A simple misunderstanding leading to excessive force and unprofessional conduct resulted in his death.

After several hours he became frustrated and threw a small table at a window seen below. He was standing still when police arrived and fired at him almost immediately.

Police first said “they could not use pepper spray because there were too many other people in the vicinity”. The video footage, shot by another passenger, showed no one else present apart from the police and Dziekanski.

The footage of Robert Dziekanski howling in agony after he was hit by 50,000-volt Taser blasts at Vancouver International Airport is another blow to Canada's famed Mounties, who have been shaken by a number of recent scandals.

Earlier this year, an inquiry cast severe doubts on the RCMP's explanation about how a police officer shot and killed a young man who had been arrested in 2005 for holding an open can of beer at a sports game in British Columbia.

The quick use of a weapon designed only to be fired as last resort raises very troubling questions. Should these devices even be used, clearly after a rash of teaser related deaths? Should deadly force even used? I don’t think so.



Since the full length video has not been released anywhere other than youtube.com at this point, I can only link to the video rather tahn download it and embed it in the blog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHKk5qQRz

The following is a video from the USA where a lady gets tasered after failing to cooperate.

The tabs: No Men Allowed, because no one really cares!

I just think that the cliental for tabloids is not interested in hearing about male celebrities in the wrong. Proportionally, more women are in the spotlight for doing things. The majority of people buying tabloids are females. Females are interested in learning the faults of other women, especially those in “superior” or successful positions like actresses. It makes the reader feel better when they here about a female celebrity plummeting out of control to the bottom. It goes back to the feeling of the celebrity being up on a pedestal. Average working woman feel inferior. So when that star falls, it makes them feel more as an equal. People get joy from other’s heartache or pain!(Human Nature, sorry!)




Look at Brittany Spears. Started off as a huge pop icon and within a month lost her kids, and underwent a messy divorce. Now if you think your life sucked as a single mother or a regular ‘Joe’ . Many female actress fall into this category. Lindsay Lohan, talk about a train wreck! This coked out “celeb” has pretty well hit rock bottom, I don’t know about you but I sure feel better!

So when, JAIME J. WEINMAN asks if there is a double standard in celebrity gossip? If not, why do gossip publications mostly go after women? I think this is simply not true. How many weeks did we here about Camer’s racist “routine” at the New York Comedy Club? What about Mel Gibson’s Jewish remarks? It was all over the place and how he was portrayed.




















The majority of people buying tabloids are females. Females are interested in learning the faults of other women, especially those in “superior” or successful positions like actresses. That’s how I see it anyway

CCA #4- Surrendering To the Hands of the Crowd

The reason why crowds are easily controlled by an individual is because crowds are driven by basic primal instincts such as emotion and passion, rather than conscious actions like intelligence, reason. This is due to a lack of individualism in a crowd that creates individual invisibility, contagion and suggestibility for crowd members.
Recently in my community, I observed this type of crowd behaviour displayed between Natives and non-Native Caledonia residents over land claim disputes. To begin, individuals in a crowd gain a sense of invincibility due to the number of members involved. One feels their actions will not be noticed, and it validates them to do bad things. An example of this invisibility is when the prominent members of the Native and non-Native Caledonia community involved themselves with brawling.
In addition, crowds become victims of contagion. All acts are contagious to a degree, thus leading to the individual sacrificing his or her own interest to the collective. At the protest, a crowd member beat up a reporter and stole his camera as to protect the crowds’ image. He was charged with aggravated assault. He ‘surrendered’ himself for the crowd.
Finally, Gary McHale was an outsider who organized the protest against the Native land claim occupation. As LeBon states, “having entirely lost his conscious personality, he obeys all suggestions of the operator who has deprived him of it” (LeBon,124). In this case the operator was Gary McHale. Those involved in the crowd lost their sense of personal boundaries, morals and beliefs. This demonstrates how suggestibility is used by the operator of the crowd.
In closing, it is easy to see how crowds can be controlled. As discussed, this is due to a lack of individualism in the crowd, which creates individual invincibility, contagion and suggestibility for crowd members. Although effortless to spot for a foreign observer, crowd members will be oblivious to the control over themselves.
LeBon, Gustav.” General Characteristics of Crowds- Psychological Law of Their Mental Utility.” Introduction to Communication. Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 2006. 121-125.

CCA #3 Self- Disclosure, The Thing We Do When We Spew.

In everyday life, one discloses information about themself. Although there are varying degrees of disclosure, the basic characteristics remain the same. That is to say that self-disclosure is influenced by culture. There tends to be a symmetrical exchange of self-disclosure, and finally, self-disclosure almost always occurs in dyads.
To begin, it is evident through talking with someone from a different culture, that levels of disclosure tend to be different. Certain lower context cultures allow people to disclose more about themselves, whereas high context cultures tend to be more closed. “In fact people born and bred in English Canada and the United States are more disclosing of themselves- not just to friends but acquaintances and even strangers” (Alder, Rodman, and Sévigny 235). Additionally, people feel compelled by the law of communication reciprocity. If you think about it, usually you receive personal information from someone, you feel obligated to tell them something personal about yourself. This reciprocity is common and occurs subconsciously. Finally, and most importantly, self-disclosure occurs in dyads. I can attest to this myself. When you are communicating in a dyad, it is relatively easy to self- disclose information because of a feeling of privacy and intimacy with the other person. On the contrary, when a third enters the conversation, the feeling of privacy and intimacy evaporates. Therefore, in order to protect yourself from unpleasant consequences, limiting self-disclosure to one person at a time proves safest. As one can see, examples of self-disclosure characteristics occur on an ongoing basis often subconsciously. Although it may not seem as though a structure governs how we disclose to others, simple characteristics are ubiquitous when self- disclosure occurs.
Adler, Ronald B., Rodman, George., Sevigny, Alexandre. Understanding Human Communication. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Stop Whining Jeff Zucker!!!

I agree 100% with Mathew Ingram, the writer of this article.
I personally do not see what Jeff Zucker’s case is. He tried to make deal with the market dominating Apple Computers and he didn’t get what he wanted. Maybe he should go back and read the fine print over. After all, Jeff Zucker is the same guy who tried to pitch that the 911 plane crashes were a hoax! DUMBASS!
If Jeff Zucker felt as though Apple was wrecking the music and video world, when he signed a deal with them in the first place.
Sounds to me like someone is jealous and wants a bigger piece of the cut. If you network takes that kind of stance against Apple, why are they trying to associate themselves with Apple? It all comes down to money!


The only thing I respect about Jeff Zucker is having the stones to try and stand up to Steve Jobs. ( Although these huge stones may be the result of utter stupidity!) The chief executive of NBC, recently pulled its TV episodes from iTunes, complaining in a recent interview at the University of Syracuse about how little revenue the network from Apple.

NBC’s lashing out at Apple was one of the only imperfections on Apple’s pristine record of market domination. Zucker accused Apple of shortchanging them in revenue.

In an interview, Zucker described how little NBC got from the deal, $15-million in revenue in a year as reported by the network. Zucker classified Steve Jobs as a notorious control freak, well I guess in order to be worth 3 Billion dollars you kind of need to be in control. Zucker accuses Jobs of refusing to budge on the fixed-pricing model for iTunes shows. Currently, Steve Jobs and Apple are responsible for 70% of all legal music downloads, bringing Apples total net worth to a “tune” (haha get the pun?!) of over $100 BILLION!

Jeff Zucker blamed the computer company for “killing the music industry in terms of pricing,” and for threatening to do the same to the video business. (which he is a part of… interesting!) I think Apple has saved the music industry from the vast www. Until iTunes got involved, the record labels were wondering aimlessly all over the web as CD sales plummeted and everyone began to participate in illegal downloading.

Although iTunes makes huge profits from the music business, there’s no question the industry has made far more from iTunes than it would ever have been able to make by itself in the online world with illegal downloading.

Zucker then proceeded to complain that Apple refused to pay NBC a cut of its iPod hardware sales. His argument was that “Apple had sold millions of dollars worth of hardware off the back of our content.” NBC primary reason from separating itself from Apple was a result of Apple refusing to pay a portion of its hardware sales to the network. I am pretty sure NBC isn’t responsible for increased sale for iPods. How many people do you know run out and say I am going to buy an iPod because I can watch NBC content on it! That is straight up bullshit. Apples catchy commercials like the following below are the reason for its popularity and success, not NBC. Steve Jobs and his marketing people are very smart in targeting the iPod to a ounger crowd by the use of commercials like the following:



All I have to say is good luck to Jeff Zucker and his new plan of action. Judging by his arguments the judge will just plug in his iPod and laugh his way out of the courtroom.

The following is a link to some of the interview from Zucker.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/29/nbc_chief_says_apple_destroyed_music_pricing.html

This is some background information on Steve Jobs that is very interesting.

http://www.forbes.com/static/bill2005/LIRHEDB.html