A Dose of Andrew

Cheating China stripped of team bronze

2010-04-29T13:05:00.001-04:00

Yesterday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) stripped the Chinese women's gymnastics team of their bronze medal from the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney and instead awarded it to the 4th-place American team.

Acting on an investigation by the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG), the IOC determined that Dong Fangxiao was ineligible to compete at the games as she was only 14 years old. Under FIG rules, gymnasts must turn 16 during the Olympic year to be eligible for competition. As such, the IOC nullified Dong's results and because she contributed to the Chinese team's point tally, the team bronze was stripped.

In the same investigation, Yang Yun, another member of the team who also won a bronze medal in the uneven bars was given a warning as her age has also come under scrutiny. In a special aired on Chinese state TV, Yang said that she competed at the 2000 Olympics when she was only 14 years old. However, Yang's results were not nullified, but she was issued a warning by the FIG.

In a statement made today to the official Xinhua News Agency, the Chinese Gymnastics Association said it was "pained over this incident", adding:

We will learn a lesson and further strengthen all kinds of administrative work on athletes and resolutely prevent a similar incident from happening again. The attitude and stance of the Chinese Gymnastics Association is completely the same as that of the IOC.

Okay, so here's my take on it.

First of all, let me just say I love women's gymnastics. Watching Svetlana Boginskaya is what encouraged me to take up the sport back in the early 90s. Since then, I've followed women's gymnastics through the years, from the Magnificent 7's team win in 1996 to Svetlana Khorkina's individual heartbreak in the 2000 and 2004 games to Nastia Liukin's triumph in 2008.

I have to say that I applaud and 100% wholeheartedly agree with the IOC's decision in this case. Simply put, the Chinese team cheated. And it's no surprise why they did it - younger gymnasts fly higher and faster and they have less fear. But the age minimums in gymnastics, as contentious as they are, remain important because they ensure that developing bodies and minds are not corrupted by sports.

I'm just surprised it took the FIG and IOC 10 years to figure it out. During Sydney, rumours were swirling about the ages of the gymnasts. And looking back at the tapes, you can see that some members of the Chinese team look underage - just like many members of the 2008 team.

And that brings me to the 2008 fiasco. I still believe, 100%, that members of that team are underage. Sure, family documents and ID cards showing the proper ages were produced, but I'm sorry, I'm skeptical of the Chinese state's influence in the matter.

He Kexin, as brilliant as she is on the bars, looks as old as my 12-year old cousin. And the documents found in 2008, some of which were official Chinese documents, listed her age in 2008 as 14.

I just have a real problem with the Chinese sports authorities believing it is okay to cheat. I hate to state the obvious, but it's not.

Integrity, fairness, openness, accountability, and transparency are the cornerstones of global sport.

I'm really disappointed that China doesn't get that and deliberately turned its back on these core principles.

And no, this posting has nothing to do with me preferring the elegant gymnastics of a Nastia Luikin or a Svetlana Khorkina versus the power gymnastics of a He Kexin (on bars) or a Shawn Johnson. It's about the principle.

China cheated once and I have to wonder if they will again.

After all, don't they always say about unfaithful spouses that 'once a cheat, always a cheat'?

P.S. Check out this great video from Newsy.com about the controversy.

A roar with no bite: The reality of the Red Dragon

2010-02-18T11:45:00.000-05:00

Despite China’s progress, it’s foolish to think it can and will challenge the United States

“China world’s 2nd largest economy”.

Get ready for that headline splashed across newspapers across the globe after China recently announced that it beat its own forecast of 8% increase in economic growth in 2009 by 0.7% - such strong growth trounced analysts more modest expectations of 5% economic growth.

Plus Beijing also announced that China’s gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of 2009 was up 10.7%, representing the fastest quarter of growth in almost 3 years.

And now, China is the largest holder of US Treasury bills and it is estimated that it holds more than $800 US in bonds.

All that together combines to paint a rosy picture that China is the new “it” economy and analysts, economists, academics, and even average joes predict that within a few decades, China will surpass the United States as the world’s largest economy – and thus, the most important political force.

But not so fast. All may not be as it seems.

After all, as with any economic statstic released by a government reporting agency, they have to taken with a grain of salt. As Homer Simpson infamously quipped, “People can come up with statistics to prove anything ... 14% of all people know that!”.

That same sentiment was echoed by Daniel Mitchell, and economist with the right-leaning think tank, the Cato Institute, who said that one cannot believe the numbers released by Beijing because of the Chinese style of governance.

"I don't trust the numbers. That being said, their growth numbers presumably are good,” said Mitchell.

Even if the numbers are as true as Beijing says they are, not everyone is painting a rosy picture of the future of the Chinese economy – and by extension, it’s position in the world.

Recently, The New York Times ran a profile on James S. Chanos, the hedge fund manager who forsaw the collapse of Enron. Chanos remains sceptical of the economic might of China as he questions the soundness of its economic boom.

In fact, Chanos said that the red-hot Chinese real estate market isn’t sustainable and says it’s like “Dubai times 1,000”. Dubai, you’ll remember, shocked the world in November 2009 when it announced it’s sovereign wealth fund, Dubai World, was seeking a six-month extension on its interest payments, raising fears that the Middle Eastern emirate would default on its loans.

While there’s no threat that the Chinese will default on a loan, Chanos pays particular attention to the housing bubble he says is a ticking timebomb and will derail the Chinese economy.

Of course, this goes against the prevailing viewpoint as China emerged from the financial crisis in what some have argued as a stronger economic position as it’s economy faltered slightly, but has revved up once again. But the large, multi-billion yuan package unveiled by Beijing to stave off the crisis that was eating away at everyone else’s economy has raised fears that its stimulus package and government spending have created artificial bubbles that will eventually burst.

For example, last year, Chinese banks made a record 9.6 trillion yuan in loans. This represented a 30% increase in lending and add to that an additional 1.1 trillion yuan in credit lines created thus far in 2010. Frankly, it doesn’t take an economist to see that there are lots of yuans floating around in the Chinese economy – and one only has to remember what excess dollars did to the American economy during the halcyon days of a boombing real estate market driven by easy-to-access prime and sub-prime mortgages.

And the effects of more money are slowly being felt in the Chinese economy. Recent inflation figures from Beijing peg December’s inflation rate at 1.9%, it’s highest level in more than a year. Economists say volatility in food and fuel prices are to blame.

That’s partly true. In China, food prices are notoriously volatile as food prices rose by more than 5% in 2009. That came on the heels of a whopping 14% increase in 2008 after disease took its tool on Chinese pork products.

Add to the ongoing inflationary pressures the fact that Chinese deposits typically only earn 0.35% interest – forcing savers and investors into the equity, bond, and real estate markets – and that’s a recipie ripe for a bubble.

But it’s not just Chanos who remains bearish on China. Analysts and commentators, including Gordon G. Chang, the author of The Coming Collapse of China and Jim Grant, the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, say that the Chinese bubble will soon go bust.

However, if the bubble does burst, China will still have its position in the world as a major manufacturing and exporter of goods that range from clothing and food to electronics.

And thus, if one takes economics out of the equation and looks at the current political climate in China, there’s even less of an argument to be made that China will soon usurp the role of the United States.

Let’s not kid ourselves. China is not a fully democratic society – it’s a weird, in-bred brand of communist capitalism. That’s not to say that democracy is the answer. In fact, some political scientists rightly argue that true democracy does not exist, least of all in the United States where some of its presidential elections, most notably in 2000, have come under scrutinty for disenfranchising specific society groups.

But China’s record for allowing dissent, freedom of expression, religion, and association is beyond atrocious. And because of that, the country lacks a certain amount of legitimacy on the world stage.

That’s not to say it has the same legitimacy problems as say North Korea or Iran – but because it takes such a hardline approach to anyone critical of the Party or the government, it does, and rightly so, lack pull on the stage. And it also lacks legitimacy due to its spotty record with Tibet and Beijing’s involvement with questionable regimes in Africa and the Middle East.

For example, the recent execution of Akmal Shaikh, a British citizen found guilty of smuggling drugs, was another mark on China’s already-poor human rights record. Shaikh, who suffered from a mental disability, was alledged to be smuggling heroin but his family claimed he was duped into carrying drugs for someone else. Despite pleas for innocence from world leaders, China carried out the execution – the first such execution by China of a European national in more than 50 years.

According to Noam Chomsky, China’s position on the world stage is based on premise that “the idea that there is a potentially powerful state that cannot easily be intimidated is very threatening to people want to rule the rule the world”.

This has lead some to say that China is “showing the West that China doesn't care what it thinks and will do what it wants”.

And after the execution of Shaikh, the UK’s Foreign Office minister Ivan Lewis summoned the Chinese Ambassador and said: “As that country plays a greater role in the world they have to understand their responsibility to adhere to the most basic standards of human rights. China will only be fully respected when and if they make the choice to join the human rights mainstream.”

But going back to the economic prowess of China, according to Joshua Rosenzweig of the rights grou, Dui Hua, foreign governments cannot exert as much control over China’s human rights record.

"We've entered a new phase, a phase in which there is less leverage for foreign governments to exert on China in the area of human rights. In the past, China would make concessions on human rights when it needed something from the West... now more often than not, it is the foreign governments that need something from China."

In an interview with the AFP, Joseph Chang, a professor of political science at City University of Hong Kong said that states need to tread carefully when criticising China.

"Immediate and open criticisms of China could backfire immediately. But if such pressures are maintained consistently and are brought up in various dialogues with China in a low-key manner, persistence will yield results," argues Chang.

But fundamentally, just because China is economically powerful does not mean it is politically powerful. Politics isn’t just about economics – although it plays a large role in it.

After all, you can’t confuse economic might with political legitimicacy.

It’s true that being an economic power will get you far – but without political legitimacy, Beijing will eventually hit a glass ceiling in terms of its ability to become a major world superpower.

And unfortunately for Beijing, no amount of money can break that ceiling – unless the whole world drinks the koolaid and subscribes to its warped sense of governance.

Did Elin 'tee-off' using Tiger's face?

2010-01-06T20:00:00.000-05:00

I know it's a little delayed, but with a recent admission from former Leafs coach Pat Burns that Tiger Woods had his teeth knocked out by his wife Eli, I figured I needed to offer my own two cents on Tiger-gate

Honestly, I don't follow golf - never have, most likely never will. But scandal is definitely a forte of mine and given the scale of Tiger's celebrity, I think his sexcapades is the scandal of the 2000s.

But the aforementioned admission by Burns only reinforced what I believed - Elin and Tiger had a confrontation before his car crash and it was likely physical.

Although I, like everyone else, don't know what was said before the crash, you know something went down - it's common sense.

I mean, c'mon, who tries to "save" someone from a car crash by smashing in the back window? Why not the front?

And speaking of the crash, why do you need to save someone through a back window when the crash was minor and either front doors could have been used?

Plus, the lack of public appearances by Tiger only serves to underscore all the gossip - and it has made an ideal case for public relations students about what not to do in a crisis!

But here's the real reason why I decided to write today - this case has taken on a new domestic abuse angle.

If Elin in fact did hit Tiger after reading text messages on his phone, as was suggested by Burns and his sources, then that's domestic abuse. She physically assaulted him plain and simple.

Of course, some will say that because she's a woman, it doesn't count. For some reason, society believes it's wrong for a man to hit a woman but if the roles are reversed, the rules are different - and that shouldn't be.

Domestic abuse is domestic abuse, regardless of if it's committed by a man or a woman. It's a physical violation of one spouse's right to a personal and physical security!

So Elin, hun, it's time to call Chris Brown because you'll need a lawyer soon!

And lucky for you, I hear Mark Geragos is available!

Backflows, bubbles, & bust: The reality of quantitative easing

2009-12-09T13:00:00.000-05:00

So here's the thing – quantitative easing (QE) is not the type of topic that usually comes up during dinner parties. It’s complex, confusing, and frankly, boring.

But given the Bank of England’s (BoE) faith that it will lead the UK out of the recession, it is important to understand what exactly it is – and more importantly, what’s at stake because like all the other recession-busting policies, it's the taxpayer on the hook if anything goes wrong.

Back in March 2009 the BoE made two announcements: first, its lending rate would be reduced to the historic low of 0.5%; secondly, a QE programme would be introduced to pump money into the economy.

In a nutshell, QE means that the BoE will purchase bonds held by private and institutional investors and will crediting their accounts immediately – the end goal is that the freed money will be used elsewhere in the economy. Originally, the Bank allocated £75 billion for the scheme but it has now increased to £178.291 billion and could tap out at £200 billion.

Now, the argument in favour of QE lies in the BoE’s mandate of keeping inflation steady at 2%, +/- 1%. In early 2009, deflation was imminent and lead to the bank engaging in QE to raise the rate of inflation to its target zone.

And it’s been successful at doing that. The most recent inflation figures show that inflation in October increased to 1.5%, up from 1.1% in September. However, inflation will likely remain volatile given the unpredictable price of oil and the upcoming change in VAT to 17.5%.

Combine that with the fact that the money generated by QE is beginning to flow into the economy, and the BoE could find itself forced to deal with a backflow in the form of high inflation.

And this backflow is made worse by the fact that, as the Financial Times’ Gillian Tett argued at a recent conference on the future of the UK economy, the BoE’s QE programme is akin to water being forced through a pipeline with the hope that it trickles out at the end.

And, as Tett added, given that billions of dollars have already been pumped through the banking pipeline, the outcome could be a bubble of inflated asset values.

Need proof?

Take a look at the FTSE-100, which has surged ahead 55.5% after hitting a six-year low in March 2009.

Recently, on Monday, November 16, it hit a 14-month high of 5,382.67 as investors with an appetite for commodity-based equities added 86.3 points to the index. That resulted in the index hitting its highest point since the September 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Even the BoE acknowledges that equity prices have risen dramatically since the start of the QE programme.

“In the month leading up to the MPC’s meeting on 7–8 October, the prices of many assets had increased. Equity prices had risen by around 50% since their March lows, but still remained at least 25% below their pre-crisis highs,” said the BoE report.

And looking ahead, another respected Financial Times columnist John Kay has repeatedly argued that without adequate structural economic reform, the world would experience a bust in the form of economic turmoil far worse than the one experienced late last year.

So with that being said, let’s be realistic about QE.

While well-intended, the BoE’s QE policy has lead to three distinct phenomena: backflow, in the form of inflation as too much money is pushed through too quickly; a bubble from inflated asset values; and a possible bust, as the structural problems plaguing the economic system are ignored.

It’s as though the BoE believes that by throwing money at a problem, it will go away.

Then again, isn't it cliché to think that you can throw money at a problem and expect it to be solved?

Failed lessons from the Northern Rock experience

2009-12-02T18:00:00.002-05:00

You would think that Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England (BoE), is sitting in his office at the BoE's headquarters on Threadneedle Street with a cup of tea, a big smile plastered across his face, and that certain sense of satisfaction that comes from being right.

After all, the outgoing EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes recently ordered Lloyds TSB and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) to divest some of their assets in order to comply with the EU’s competition policy. Under the terms published in various news reports, RBS will sell 318 branches, representing 14% of its retail network, while Lloyds will sell at least 600 of its UK branches.

So naturally, King must be happy seeing two large banks reduced in size. Especially since it was more than 5 months ago that King, at the annual Mansion House gathering of City bankers, argued that “too big to fail” banks needed to be reduced in size.

In a speech that read like a sharp rebuke of the light-touch regulatory stance that had intoxicated politicians on both sides of the Atlantic, King suggested that deposit insurance schemes should limited to smaller, narrow, retail-focused banks, and that banks deemed “too big to fail” should be forced to keep larger capital reserves. And all banks, regardless of size, should be mandated to create a living will, a document that would make winding up a failed bank easy – as opposed to the messes created with Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Northern Rock.

And even though the EU is forcing Britain’s hand in breaking up two of the largest banks, I doubt that King will be sleeping better at night. This isn’t what he wants.

King’s not just concerned about the size of banks in the literal sense – he’s also concerned about the complex and incestuous relationship that’s developed between conservative, deposit-taking retail banking and the riskier, prone-to-the-whims-of-the-market investment banking.

In essence, the EU’s recent actions don’t deal with what King sees as the fundamental issue – banks are simply too big and too important to fail.

At its most basic level, banks, through their retail divisions, perform such a vital function in society that if they went under, we would be faced with chaos.

Consider the fundamental banking function – to facilitate the transfer of capital from savers to borrowers. This is why you and I can go and get a mortgage at a High Street bank – as opposed to negotiating a loan from our neighbourhood loan shark in some dark alleyway!

Plus, banking, as an industry sector, relies on consumer confidence to keep it moving. It’s that very confidence that leads people to put their hard-earned money into a deposit envelope and then into the deposit machine. They believe that their money will be safe.

And when there’s fear that money isn’t safe, you get runs on the bank (see Northern Rock) and people holding onto their money at home. But then this itself comes with problems when people try to act as their own banker.

Consider the story that ran back in June of a woman in Tel Aviv who threw out her mother’s old mattress which had $1 million USD stuffed inside? According to a report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s website, the elderly woman claimed to have had "traumatic experiences with banks" leading to her decision to hold on to her own money.

Just think of how many more “traumatic experiences with banks” customers will be left if a bank fails – and how many more mattresses full of millions of dollars will be clogging up landfills!

All jokes aside, taking this consumer confidence argument a step further, if just one bank fails resulting in a run, you can bank (pardon the pun) on other queues of people wanting their money forming outside other High Street bank branches.

And while in theory, this sounds okay, as people will be able to still purchase goods and services and will learn to live on cash, the reality is that money isn’t a valuable investment – and in fact, it loses its value over time thanks to inflation.

For example, let’s say you have save £2, the cost of a small latte at Starbucks. With inflation at 2% per year, your £2 savings won’t be enough to purchase that same cup of coffee next year as business costs – the cost of things like coffee, sugar, milk, and labour – will have risen, thus reducing the value of your £2 savings.

And so, simply from a consumer standpoint, banks cannot fail because of the implications for consumers and consumer confidence in the entire banking system – a point that journalists like Alton E. Drew seem to miss when they argue that just because one bank fails, it doesn’t mean the whole system will.

Granted, if one bank fails, there is a possibility that no other banks will fail – chalk it up to “market forces. But that’s not really the point.

Most importantly, just one bank failure leads to undermined confidence in the banking and financial system. And given the shaky ground that the economy is on right now, a bank failure, combined with unstable employment trends, could lead to massive retail bank runs – runs that most banks couldn’t meet with such low in-house money reserves.

Thus, banks cannot simply be allowed to fail. There is too much vested consumer interest if a bank fails. Not only do consumers risk losing their deposits and the value of their money, but their confidence in the entire system is shaken.

Let’s remember that banks, fundamentally, exist to serve the consumer and use their trust and confidence to maintain operations.

Credit King for seeing that a system built on a shaky foundation is bound to come crashing down sooner or later – but that we have an ideal opportunity to ensure that never happens.

Now, if only those in the power corridors of the Washington and Wall Street, Downing Street and the City, would get that – then again, perhaps the Northern Rock experience just wasn’t enough.

Confessions of a cross-border shopper ... How to maximize your Black Friday 2009 campaign!

2009-11-19T16:30:00.005-05:00

The countdown is on!

It's just a few days until the one day that every professional shopper trains for.

That's right, I'm talking about Black Friday – the day after the American Thanksgiving.

And if you aren't familiar with Black Friday, think of it as the Holy Grail of all shopping days!

This year, the sales and shopping mayhem happen on Friday, November 27, 2009. And even though the Canadian dollar isn't on par with the American dollar, the sales this year will be better than last year's, as retailers look to lure in customers during the ongoing financial crisis.

Now, before you accuse me of being unpatriotic by cross-border shopping, just remember how dependent our economy is on the American economy.

Think of it this way – I get discounted merchandise, they get a healthier economy, and by extension, we get a better trading partner. It's win-win-win!

Two years ago, my Black Friday campaign was a huge success. The deals I scored during my two-day powerhouse shopping marathon were well worth sacrificing sleep and decent meals.

Sadly, I'm overseas studying during the 2009 Black Friday campaign so I won't be able to participate.

Nonetheless, in my capacity as Canada's self-proclaimed #1-ranked cross border shopper, I thought I would offer 5 tips for first-time (and maybe even returning) Black Friday participants.

So here are my top 5 tips for making your Black Friday 2009 campaign successful:

1.) Book your hotel well in advance

Hotels fill-up fast and the rates tend to be higher during the American Thanksgiving holiday period. Check out websites like Kayak.com and Hotwire.com for a listing of cheap, last-minute hotel deals in shopping hotspots like Buffalo, NY and Erie, PA.

2.) Get lots of sleep the night before your shopping expedition

During the sales, you cannot afford to be tired – it affects your ability to calculate prices and make good decisions. Black Friday demands you bring your A-game.

Plus, some malls open their stores at 12am on Friday morning. And what would you rather be doing – shopping or sleeping?

3.) Check out online fliers and make a list of what you really want

Check out websites that post Black Friday ads, such as

- Black Friday Ads - The Official Black Friday 2009 Website

- Black Friday Ads for Black Friday 2009

- Black Friday 2009 Ads

If you want constant updates, I recommend signing up for their newsletters as you'll be notified once a new flier is released.

Be on the lookout for time-sensitive door crashers. If you see one you really want, visit that store first – remember that the lineups for stores like Best Buy, Target, and Wal-Mart are always long and people start lining up early on Thursday night.

4.) Work in teams and always communicate with each other

Get a few friends or family members together, combine your lists and head out to the stores. This way you can split up and tackle different stores or malls, while ensuring you get the items you want.

And trust me, when dealing with a large lineup, its a blessing when one person waits in line while the others shop. This maximizes your bargain hunting time!

Just make sure you have a fully charged cell phone – communication is key when group shopping!

5.) Bring a large bottle of water and a few snacks

Personally, I always carry a bottle of water and a few snacks – granola or energy bars work the best. This way I can keep my energy levels up while not wasting my time standing in line at the food court.

So there you have it – the top 5 Black Friday shopping tips from Canada's self-proclaimed #1-ranked cross border professional shopper.

While Black Friday shopping can be an intense experience, with a little planning and some teamwork, it can be quite simple and actually very fun. And really, the chance to snag awesome deals is more than worth any small sacrifice.

And so I wish you good luck, but remember ...

Shopping is just like a sport – you've got to be prepared, work in teams, and keep your eye on the gold!

Only in this sport, the gold medal is finding that one item at the perfect bargain-basement price!

Confessions of a cross-border shopper ... How to maximize your Black Friday 2009 campaign!

2009-11-19T16:30:00.004-05:00

Controversy strikes the WWF's new online video

2009-09-06T13:30:00.001-04:00

Then again, if it's controversial, people will talk about it which generates buzz which generates online and mainstream media coverage which results in (un)healthy debate on particular issues.

And I'm all for this, as debate and discourse informs and educates everyone on important societal issues.

But frankly I feel as though controversy has become the new black because everything these days is deemed controversial - from Obama's speech to young Americans about the importance of education to my neighbour's decision to wear white after Labour Day, you can't escape the "controversial" label.

Of course there's differing levels of controversy, but in society's effort to be politically correct, we have a culture where anything and everything can and often is deemed to be controversial to at least one segment of the population.

Take for example the new online video from the World Wildlife Fund. It's generating lots of buzz online because it compares the terrorist attacks of September 11 to the 2004 tsunami that ravaged southeast Asia and it powerfully points out that the tsunami killed 100 times as many people.

I'm sure this video will be deemed controversial and disrespectful over at Fox News - if anything, the image of more planes flying towards the New York skyline will get the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity, and Coulter all up in arms.

But truth be told, it's an excellent ad. It shows that even one of the most devastating human-created disasters is no match for the power of the earth.

After all, hell hath no fury like Mother Nature scorned!

But what's your view on it?

Is it too controversial?

Or does it do it's job in making people think twice about the raw power of weather and geological processes of the Earth?

Clement steps up for Canada while Ericsson is just plain pathetic

2009-07-27T14:45:00.001-04:00

Well, just a few hours after my last post on the takeover of Nortel's wireless division by Sweden's Ericsson, it looks like Industry Minister Tony Clement might take a more proactive approach in the auction of Nortel's assets.

According to a report in the Toronto Star, Clement said that "he will consider intervening in the auction of Nortel assets on grounds of Canadian national interest" while adding that "he would vet the Nortel sale after Tuesday's court approval of the transaction."

Finally, the government decides to stand up for Canadians and our technological prowess!

And yes, I'd like to think that my previous post had a little something to do with Clement's change of heart - of course it didn't, but I can still dream!

One thing that's not a dream - although at first I thought it was - is Ericsson's utterly pathetic request for financing from the Canadian government to complete the transaction.

In the same article, Ericsson said it would attempt to secure a loan through Export Development Canada.

I can't believe that Ericsson's Chief Financial Officer, Hans Vestberg, went on record and said, "We will sit down with the Canadian government and see if we can get financing from them."

I just don't get it. You bid to buy a company and then you ask for financing help!

Talk about horrible strategy and beyond atrocious, Enron-worthy accounting practices!

So memo to Ericsson ...

You can't afford it - don't buy it!

You don't have the money - you don't get the company!

It's as simple as that!

And frankly, the government, through the Export Development Canada programme you hope will grant you the loan, shouldn't offer you a dime!

Canadian taxpayers shouldn't be using valuable tax dollars to contribute to the hollowing out of Canada's technological infrastructure!

That's right - Canada will not pay to export jobs, its businesses, and its technology!

And good luck finding a country that will!

Canada just loves bleeding its technology

2009-07-27T12:05:00.000-04:00

With the recent acquisition of Nortel's wireless division by Sweden's Ericsson, Canada is once again bleeding its technology developed with tax dollars and credits.

Not that CDMA technology is worth saving while the rest of the world solidifies its reliance on GSM, but with next-generation patents held by Nortel, the $1.13 billion (US) price tag is a steal for Ericsson.

Even though Ericsson is promising 2,500 jobs, it's a huge loss for Canada. I'd almost liken it to the cancellation of the Avro Arrow project in the 1959 - Canada is once again on the cusp of being a technological leader, but falters at the last minute.

But truth be told, what really disappoints me about this is that RIM, maker of the Blackberry, was shut out of the process. Thankfully, analysts say that RIM isn't finished and is plotting its next move - perhaps launching a complaint with the Competition Bureau over its exclusion from the bidding process.

And although I'm against tech giants - or any large-scale conglomerates for that matter - I'd much rather have a Canadian telecom giant lead by RIM, than the hollowing out of Canada's telecom infrastructure.

Frankly, it's time that the Canadian government step up and stem the flow of foreign takeovers of Canadian companies.

But of course, Industry Canada, lead by *cue eye roll* Tony Clement, has said it will not step in as it did in the controversial sale of technology developed by MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates to US-based Alliant Technologies.

And that's got me thinking - at what point will the Canadian government decide that enough Canadian companies are foreign-owned? And how much more of Canada can be foreign-owned before we don't even recognize our country anymore?

Then again, I'm just waiting for our entire governance structure to become a private company - then the US can just scoop up Canada at a bargain basement price and we can become 51st state!

Get outta my fast lane!

2009-07-25T23:15:00.001-04:00

Frankly, it's about time we start fining people who aren't driving fast enough on the highway!

And I'm sorry, but I feel no pity for drivers like Erik Bonstrom, a man who was given an $80 fine after being caught travelling too slow on the highway!

Oh how I wish the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) would do the same!

I can't tell you how many times I've been driving, either on a road or on the highway, and other drivers are going 10-20km/h under the speed limit.

Don't get me wrong - in bad weather, like rain or a snowstorm, you want to drive slower and safer. I do it all the time and in fact, in such conditions, I drive in a lower gear!

But on a clear day, when you're on highway 401, barely hitting 80km/h, and trying to merge into the express lane, there's a problem - a huge problem!

And yes, while there are rules of the road, there are also "rules" of the road - unwritten, not-so-secretly OPP-sanctioned rules that all drivers should follow in order to maintain the flow of traffic.

Case in point - nobody travels 100km/h on highway 401. It's pretty much standard to drive 110km/h and I'd say that, outside of rush hour, most drive 120km/h.

Not only is it frustrating for other drives, it slows down the flow of traffic. But more importantly, it's also unsafe - in fact, it's simple math:

slow drivers + altered flow of traffic = increase in difficulties changing lanes and driving along = increase in road rage = increase in accidents

And if handing out stiff fines is the only way to deter bad drivers, then so be it.

In fact, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but Ontario needs to be more like Quebec and impose speed minimums - and huge fines on those who don't meet them!

C'mon Ontario, time to get up to speed!

Awww ... Bill Gates has left Facebook!

2009-07-25T21:45:00.000-04:00

... and I should care because?!

It's not like I'm a friend of Bill's on Facebook - he thinks he's too cool for me!

And he must think that of everyone else using a service he partly owns because at a recent event in India, Gates announced that he is leaving Facebook.

His reason ... too many friend requests!

Yeah ... right?!

Somehow, I get the feeling that these friend requests are because Gates is rich, famous, and is more powerful than Obama - or he's just paid off selected Facebook users to make him look popular.

But seriously, what must investors be thinking when, as a part-owner, you don't even have a profile?

Doesn't really engender a lot of confidence does it?

Then again, if I know Bill, you know since we are such good friends, he's probably working on some Facebook knock-off that he'll unveil with the latest Windows offering ...

Oh wait, he already did that with the fabulously craptastic Windows Live Spaces initiative!

Bring it on? Well, it's already been brought'n!

2009-07-16T13:15:00.002-04:00

It looks like Tamie Dolny has become the new face of the pro-union side in the ongoing Toronto Civic Workers strike. That's probably a good thing because I've grown weary of Local 79's Ann Dembinski.

Yesterday, the Toronto Star published an article from Dolny about her experiences as a striking city worker. She boldly gave her opinions and talked openly about how her impression of the other striking workers changed as soon as she picked up a placard.

I applaud her for sharing her view - and based on a quick scan of the comments section along with the general feeling I felt as I walked through downtown Toronto yesterday, she is definitely representing the minority viewpoint. And it's never easy to do that - particularly in an age of personal attacks and hate posts that are protected by online anonymity.

And as much as I do not agree with her views, I still respect her viewpoint - although her decision to focus solely on the wage issue struck me as odd when there are other, equally contentious, issues on the table. For example, it would be interesting to get her take on seniority since she's a young employee most likely to be bumped should a seniority battle break out. Or on the sick day bank as she might have been eligible to cash out her sick days at the end of the summer depending on her job contract.

To capitalize on this, the Toronto Star announced today that Dolny was hired as a columnist for the duration of the strike.

When I saw the headline on my RSS feed, I thought it was a great, bordering on brilliant, idea - I appreciate hearing a diversity of viewpoints on any given topic and Dolny definitely has her own. Plus, I thought that given her experience "in the trenches" Dolny could chronicle what life really is like for people on strike and earning just $800 a month.

And so, from the start, Dolny's second article is a response to her critics who questioned how/why she was hired and how much she really knows about life. It's great that she contextualizes her earlier comments because it gives her views more legitimacy.

Yet, while the article started out great, I was not a fan of the conclusion. Dolny ends her article by saying:

I know I have an unpopular opinion, and I really hope I haven't offended anyone. I look forward to hearing from you – it's invigorating to hear adults express what's really on their minds.

In other words, bring it on.

Now, it's okay to have a difference of opinion and as long as one is respectful, as Dolny has been, there is no reason to apologize or be concerned that you are hurting someone's feelings - discussion and debate are the cornerstones of democracy.

But what I do take issue with is the last line - "In other words, bring it on." I find that statement to be too partisan, defiant, and threatening, which is ironic coming from Dolny who is valiantly working to shed the (mis)conceptions and prevailing public opinion on the views and positions of both Local 79 and Local 416.

Still, I look forward to reading Dolny's next article. But perhaps she'll tone down the partisan and defiant rhetoric of the second article - save that for Ann Dembinski.

Because frankly, during a strike that threatens the financial, social, and political viability of our city, we don't need representatives of one viewpoint asking the opposing viewpoint to "bring it on".

That is, unless you're talking about a viable and affordable solution to the strike.

Then by all means, bring it on!

Stalk me on Twitter!

2009-07-16T11:15:00.002-04:00

I've officially joined Twitter - yes, I've sold out!

I was inspired after watching an episode of Kathy Griffin's My Life On The D List and seeing Kathy's mom try and manage her daughter's Facebook page.

And speaking of Mizz Griffin, I've given myself a new nickname - DListDivo. It's an homage to her life on the D-list which, let's be honest, is where I'll be until Oprah decides to retire with Stedman and all her millions ... and name me as her successor!

So with my new nickname, you can look me up on Twitter under DListDivo and follow me!

And please follow me ... Twitter-stalk me ... whatever!

Frankly, I wouldn't mind a few Twitter stalkers ... because you know, according to Kathy, having Twitter stalkers is how you know you've made it on the D-list!

D-list forever!

I demand a recount!

2009-07-15T23:30:00.000-04:00

This can't be true!

As a certified and card-carrying Tim Horton's addict, I smell fraud!

Dunkin' Donuts actually tied with Tim Horton's in a blind donut taste test.

Somehow I think the folks at Dunkin' Donuts were able to commit a little fraud - maybe pay off some of the testers or just simply not count those who prefer Tim Horton's. And we've all seen what happens when vote fraud happens - hello another US election in Florida circa 2000!

Seriously, can we get the Supreme Court, and yes, even Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings, to weigh in on this?

After all, judges, like police officers and CBSA agents, know their donuts!

Who knew that flying cures a fear of flying?

2009-07-15T22:30:00.004-04:00

Who knew that living on a plane for a month is a cure for a fear of flying?

Apparently Mark Malkoff knew - I must've missed the memo!

In case you haven't heard, Mark is an American comedian/writer who spent a month living on a plane and made 135 trips around the US. He says he's scared of flying and taking part in the challenge helped him get over his fear.

I admit that I'm jealous he got to live on a plane for a month. I love flying. It's an event for me and I dress up and get all matchy matchy - and I love strutting down the aisle as if it were a runway!

But then again, would I want to make 135 trips where I could be stuck beside someone who goes to the bathroom every 15 minutes, falls asleep on your shoulder, talks non-stop about meaningless stuff like the lint ball they found in their shoe ... or worse, the dreaded seat mate who takes up part of your seat?!

Still, that would be 135 trips down an aisle that I could pretend is a Milan or New York runway!

Tempting ...

But back in reality, I'm not sure I could do it. I have what friends have termed as "low but high maintenance tendencies" - could I really exist without a shower and a small "bathroom" used by hundreds of other people?

Ummm, no!

But I will say this - if any airline would like to stick me in a plane for a month and watch me go all catwalk - and even a little kooky and crazy - then get in touch. It would make great reality television and I'd definitely knock Keeping up with the Kardashians and Paris Hilton: My New BFF out of the water!

Air Canada ... I'm waiting!

Barack's baby don't got back!

2009-07-12T09:45:00.000-04:00

I'm not even going to dignify this story with a comment ...

Well I am, but only to say that this is exactly why photos - including this one - are the most deceiving visual medium.

You just can't trust anything anymore! Lighting, angles, cropping and photoshopping - everything and anything can radically distort reality.

But in this case, the one thing that wasn't distorted - Mr. Sarkozy caught with a wandering eye ...

At least he's more discreet than others ... hint hint Mr. Berlusconi!

Time for the Toronto strike to end!

2009-07-11T16:20:00.001-04:00

We are now into what ... day 20 of the Toronto Civic Workers' strike ... frankly, I've lost count of the days, patience for both sides involved, and compassion for the unions' positions.

But one thing I haven't lost is my displeasure at how much Toronto stinks - and it's not just the air from the rotting garbage, but the general political and social culture of Toronto has a really foul stench!

There's no sense in rehashing the timeline of the strike - it is pretty clear what the job action is over and the impacts of it are even more explicit!

But I will say, as a former Toronto Social Services employee and member of Local 79, I place the blame for the ongoing labour turmoil firmly with the union. Honestly, their demands just aren't doable and/or reasonable in the current economic climate we have. And I don't appreciate such partisan rhetoric!

Frankly, pay raises can't be as large as they were before - we're in a recession and the city does not have the resources to pay large sums of money. Everyone is losing their jobs and having their wages rolled back - city workers should not be immune from the pain.

Granted, Toronto councillors gave themselves a pay raise recently and I completely disagreed with that - in a time of financial turmoil, we need to be financially prudent in some areas so we can spend more in others. Therefore, I completely agree that Toronto's politicians dropped the ball on this issue.

But getting back to the issues on the table - let's talk about the banking sick time issue. It's simply a perk that, down the road, will cost the city too much money. Being able to bank unused days is a perk that many other workers don't have - and again, given the precarious financial situation of Toronto, we cannot afford to be paying out millions of dollars in extra salaries when city workers retire.

Yet, ironically, the issue that I have the strongest feelings on is that of seniority - usually, when I talk the strike with people, I tell them not to get me started on it.

But since I'm sharing my thoughts, let's talk about this too. Frankly, the seniority system has become a process whereby unqualified, incompetent, and sometimes unprofessional 40-something year-olds are able to bump and take the jobs of junior, often younger and more educated colleagues.

And yes, you can call it sour grapes as I've been on the losing end of seniority battles, but the fact remains that it directly stifles the amount of innovation and fresh talent that the city can recruit.

Therefore, as I've said from the start of the strike, I really believe that both unions should not have gone on strike, but rather bargained in good faith knowing what the fiscal and resource restraints of the city are.

And in case anybody in the union might read this, feel free to search my name and you'll see that I was a due-paying member of Local 79 during the summers of 2007 and 2008. And don't mistake my criticism of the unions' actions - I'm not some sort of anti-union Conservative hack. I'm very progressive and sit firmly on the left of the political spectrum and have been a life-long NDP supporter.

However, I have little tolerance for strikes that become a game of chess and result in innocent bystanders forced into the role of pawns. Chalk this up to my rather unfortunate membership in the generation of students that endured years of strikes and job action in school - from Bill 160 in 1997 to the work-to-rule campaigns of the 2000s.

And so, to Local 416 and Local 79, I ask that you re-examine the bargaining positions of the members you represent. Quite simply, we are in a recession and Toronto does not have adequate resources to meet all of your demands. And in a time of economic turmoil, everyone needs to come together and pool resources so that we can get through the upheaval and emerge better and stronger - that means we ALL need to make sacrifices!

I admit that my criticism and subsequent request comes from knowing - and believing - that unions can do good and can be a force of positive change for all. There is a rich history of unions improving conditions for the greater good of all society.

But somehow, both Local 416 and Local 79 have forgotten this - this strike has shown that both unions don't value the greater good but instead value the interests - and absurd requests - of their members.

And frankly, in a time where we all need to come together and sacrifice for the greater good, I sit here shaking my head in disappointment and shame that I once was a member of such a backwards-thinking union!

Napolitano's got a bad case of foot in mouth disease!

2009-04-22T18:19:00.000-04:00

Honestly, Janet Napolitano, the current US Homeland Security Secretary and Condi Rice wannabe, is such a joke. As a Canadian, I can't even take her seriously anymore!

A few weeks ago, she said that the Canadian border should be treated the same way as the Mexican border. Right ... okay? Perhaps she forgot that she was talking about the border her country shares with its largest and most important trading partner.

Then again, maybe a fence would be a good idea after all! You know, Canada could keep its oil, lumber, and fresh water to itself. Just think ... all those natural resources that, let's be honest, will start the next (and final) world war. And yes, a fence will make it more difficult to transport goods and maybe Canada will finally start looking elsewhere for more respectful trading partners - Hello India, China, and Brazil!

But of course, Napolitano wasn't content with announcing her intention to treat the Canadian and Mexican borders the same. She had to get even more ridiculous, as evidenced by recent statements she made where she said that Canada is more lax about whom it lets in.

I can't believe it? Napolitano's got a problem with Canada's immigration system!

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

I'm sorry, but I lost track of how many illegal immigrants there are in the United States? It's always increasing and I'm never sure which number to use - plus, adding big numbers was never my strong point!

Oh, and about the September 11 attacks - the perpetrators came through American airports on American travel documents correct? I thought they did, but perhaps it was a Canadian-issued American visa because our ambassadors have nothing better to do then impersonate American officials!

In all seriousness though, Napolitano really has no basis for her claims that Canada is more lax with its immigration policy. It's a rigorous system and contrary to popular belief, you can't just walk into Canada and call it home. Even visiting Canada as a tourist is tough - my friend from India has a multiple-entry visa for the US, but each time she visits Canada, she has to apply for a new visa!

Sounds like the Canadian system is stricter than the American one!

Then again, I think that Napolitano's just got a really bad case of foot in mouth disease. And not just any foot in mouth disease, but the highly contagious and sickening politician strain - you know, the strain that infected all of the Bush administration!

But since we dealt with that administration and its faux pas for 8 years, we know what cures that ...

A very public dismissal from cabinet!

Just because you’re on Facebook or Twitter doesn't mean you’re cool and hip!

2009-04-12T12:29:00.000-04:00

... and it seems as though various agencies of the Government of Canada and even the Prime Minister himself didn't get this message - they probably missed it while spewing their partisan, election-style rhetoric.

However, in case you missed it, the federal government is finally embracing online social networking technologies. Ironically, this comes during Stephen Harper's reign, but it’s true - they are expanding how they inform, inspire, and interact with Canadians.

But the big question - are they doing it properly?

In short ... NO!

They are failing on many levels, but rather than simply explain why, let me show you some recent examples that have had less than stellar results.

First, the Canada Revenue Agency decided to have a video contest on the underground economy. They encouraged Canadians to upload a video to YouTube explaining why the underground economy is bad and damages the Canadian one.

I decided to search for their YouTube channel and I wasn't surprised. Since joining in January of 2009, they only have 35 subscribers - and how many of those do you wager are public sector employees?! As for the contest, it looks as though they only have 7 entries as there are only 7 favourited videos. When I searched all of YouTube for 'underground economy CRA', those were the 7 that came up - of course, there could very well be videos that are private or have not been favourited.

But nevertheless, I think we can call CRA's YouTube adventure a failure. I doubt it has generated the buzz that CRA was hoping for and if anything, it shows that they are incapable of using these technologies properly - and this only furthers the view that the agency itself is old, out-dated and only good with accounting formulas.

And seriously, how many people are going to care enough about the underground economy to post a video? CRA claims, and somewhat rightfully so, that the underground economy damages the overall Canadian economy in a number of ways.

But consider this - in an era of layoffs, bankruptcies and spending cutbacks, are people going to care about where or how they get many of the items they need? In all honesty, probably not! Wherever it is cheaper is where they'll go - and that includes going underground.

Now, if it isn't enough that CRA is on YouTube, Citizen & Immigration Canada has joined them and created their own YouTube channel with videos (I mean their commercials!) on the upcoming changes to Canada's immigration law that take effect on April 17 - otherwise known as the Wake Up Canadian Day.

Again, they only have 14 subscribers - and let's face it, they're probably government employees too! Plus, they only have 4 videos uploaded - well technically it's only two videos in both English and French!

But the real kicker is that while their videos have gotten a fair number of views, they have also been poorly received and it shows in the video ratings. Maybe the market research company that CIC paid to develop the ads didn't see that some people just don't buy the feel-good nature of the videos.

Now, I admit that with any ad campaign, there's always going to be someone who doesn't like it. But with YouTube, people can rate the video and make comments/response videos which can undo what you're hoping to achieve - not that this necessarily applies here, as the text comments have been fairly positive.

However, the bigger issue is that when you put content online, it becomes a lot easier to attack, insult, and discredit it - and to make it worse, it can all be done anonymously so you don't even know who has taken issue with the content.

But the pièce de résistance in this social network experiment is that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has joined Facebook, Myspace, YouTube, Flickr, and yes, even Twitter.

I find it incredibly ironic that Stephen Harper is on these services as he is, in my opinion, the least-accessible and media-adverse Prime Minister that

Canada

has ever had. You can see it in the way he dismisses interview requests, hides behind PR hacks, and is content to let the Canadian media and cultural industries, in particular the CBC, suffer.

Then again, going online gives content producers more power to control and tailor the message and Harper has always loved doing that. Just take a look at Harper's user-created content - it's all positive and glowing about his "accomplishments".

And not surprisingly, there is very little room for any dialogue with ordinary Canadians. Consider his YouTube videos which do not allow for text comments - seems a little counterproductive in that Canadians cannot debate and discuss with him the content of his videos ... or wait, is that really a concern of his?

In sum, if there's anything that Harper, his ministers, and their staff can learn, it's that using social network websites will not make you look cool. You've tried to use them and you've failed for various reasons - it's time to go back to the drawing board!

But before you do, here's a memo from me that hopefully you do read:

April 12, 2009

ATTN: Prime Minister Stephen Harper, his ministers, and all public service employees

RE: Your online social networking 'experiment'

Face it, you're not cool and you're not like Barack Obama!

Stop trying so hard to be popular by using social networking websites that don't do and accomplish what you want them to do.

If anything, start first by rebuilding your relationship with the mainstream media - it's been broken for a while and it could do with fixing.

Once that's done, realize that going online opens a host of opportunities, but also problems - and problems that don't just go away with the disabling of comments or feedback forms!

Canada's "immigration, integration and language" question

2009-03-23T17:55:00.005-04:00

Recently, Jason Kenney, Canada's Immigration Minister, said that new immigrants to Canada should be proficient in either English or French. He says that Canada needs to work on integration of immigrants and one such way to do so is to encourage learning either official language.

Of course, in theory, Canada's immigration laws say that new immigrants should be proficient in either - after all, it's part of the citizenship test. But the reality is a completely different - some immigrants have little or no knowledge of either French or English.

And leaving all political correctness aside, this is a true fact. I spent two years working the front-line at Service Canada (in EI and SIN number processing) and I cannot tell you how many times I've been unable to help clients due to a massive language barrier. In all honesty, it did make my job more difficult and it impacted the level of service I was able to offer. Although, I did feel immense pride when I helped newcomers learn a few new words.

But fundamentally, there is an obvious gap between what the policy stipulates and what happens on the ground.

At the most basic level, new immigrants do need to be proficient in either language to fully experience everything Canada has to offer. This isn't to say that these newcomers cannot survive - most can survive with only their mother tongue given the linguistic diversity of Canada's large cities.

But without knowing English or French, opportunities for jobs, schooling, and other activities is limited - and this prevents both newcomers and native Canadians from interacting and learning from each other and experiencing the true greatness of the Canadian cultural mosaic.

Ironically, the solution to this is quite simple - we need to properly fund language classes and welcome centres. The government needs to step in and realize that there's a gap and that programmes and services offering a chance to learn English or French in a comfortable, non-threatening and collegial atmosphere is exactly what we need.

We already fund a number of programmes for children and youth - after all, they can take advantage of the ESL programmes offered in elementary and secondary schools. But adults, while they can take part, are often forgotten. And that's why some of my friends' parents and grandparents who have spent more than a decade in Canada only know "Thank you" or "Merci" - this is a huge problem.

But not only is the funding needed, the federal government must liaise with the provincial and (in particular) the municipal governments as they are usually involved in overseeing these programmes. For city governments, they alone cannot handle this - as the first point of contact, they often fund these services. And while I applaud all their efforts, it cannot last without properly sustained funding from the federal government - the ones responsible for immigration matters.

Until such funding is given, the debate over language, immigration and integration will needlessly continue - and that means that Canada's cultural fabric risks being torn apart.

Stop playing politics with the CBC

2009-03-03T17:21:00.002-05:00

With the CBC facing a $65 million revenue shortfall, the federal government shows no signs of offering a lifeline – and that has me both worried about the fate of the CBC and disappointed in the Canadian government.

According to CBC president Hubert Lacroix, the corporation is facing the shortfall due to decreased advertising revenues and increased programming and administrative costs – not to mention the prospect of reduced revenues from licensing and rebroadcasting rights.

The CBC has requested a loan, or an advance on their funding, to cover the shortfall but Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has argued that the CBC already receives $1 billion in funding, along with $60 million in non-recurring funding.

And so the inaction in Ottawa has put the rumour mill into overdrive – CBC insiders say that up to 700 jobs are on the chopping block, local operations could be merged, and there’s a possibility of ads running on English radio and the sale of Radio 3.

In a recent press release, the CBC maintains that for the current fiscal year, ending March 31, they will remain in the red. But given the current economic climate and the dire picture painted by private broadcasters and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, things are looking bleak for 2009-10.

Of course, once the request was made public, a number of news outlets jumped on the anti-CBC bandwagon, decrying the request. Many of the columns and op-eds argued that the CBC should be privatized or weaned off public dollars over a 7 to 10-year period.

And as someone who watches and listens to the CBC, I found it problematic that there is even a discussion about altering the CBC.

For starters, placing ads on English radio means that the CBC will be at the mercy of advertisers – and their critical, hard-hitting journalism will suffer. Selling Radio 3 means that Canadian arts and culture will suffer, as Radio 3 has done an admirable job of giving emerging artists national and international exposure.

And adding more American content, while it will bring in large audience numbers for primetime, moves the CBC away from its core mandate to provide programming that is “predominantly and distinctively Canadian”.

And given that the CBC, under the Broadcasting Act, is entrusted with ensuring their programming contributes to creation, flow, and exchange of culture, consciousness, and identity, I don’t see any other network ready or willing to accept these responsibilities – CTV and Canwest Global are simply too concerned with their own falling profit margins.

Frankly, the request for the loan has me worried. It is a well-known fact that the CBC is underfunded – in constant dollars, their funding hasn’t been increased in years. And the government seems content on allowing the CBC to continue to flounder, despite its important role. Bob Rae, the MP for Toronto Centre, has gone on the record, criticizing the government for using the recession to “gut the CBC”.

I’d hate to see this happen – I remember watching a slew of CBC programmes, including Jonovision, Street Cents, and Degrassi High. Many of these shows are cultural icons or have inspired other networks to produce similar programming.

And I’m pretty sure that everyone has at least seen or listened to a CBC programme – after all, it’s a well-known Canadian institution, much like Tim Hortons, the RCMP, or beavers.

Not only does the CBC entertain, educate, and inform, but it also inspires Canadians everywhere.

But in order to do so, it must be properly funded and supported by the government. We can’t afford to play politics with the CBC.

Because if we do, the cultural, political and social quilt of Canada risks being ripped apart and I can pretty much guarantee that no other network will be able (or want) to fill such a gaping hole.

* Originally posted on InformedVote.ca on March 4, 2009 *

I can send a text messages every two minutes … can you?

2009-02-13T14:35:00.003-05:00

Well, according to the New York Post, this California teen can!

According to her 440 page bill, the girl managed to send an astounding 14,528 texts in one month!

Do the math – that works out to 484 messages per day or about one message every two minutes! At that rate, she must be BFFs with every single person in school!

Now, when I read the story, I immediately began to imagine what would happen if the same girl sent the same amount of text messages in Canada.

I’m pretty sure the dad would develop arm strain from the weight of the massive bill, and after opening it, he would experience a heart attack over the astronomical price … and heck, given today’s tough economic times, I’d wager that he’d wake up in hospital thinking of declaring personal bankruptcy!

Seriously though, take a step back and really imagine what that scenario would look like. Case in point – one of our incumbent carriers offers a plan that includes 10,000 sent texts for $20. Not too bad, but let’s say this same girl sends an additional 4,528 messages.

At 15 cents each, she will be looking at an additional $679 in charges on top of her basic and competitively-priced (I mean overpriced!) cellular plan.

So why is this story important? Well the main point of the Post article – that teen girls send a lot of text messages – is not exactly earth shattering!

But take a look behind the bemusing headline. Look at the wireless provider – in this case AT&T.

Unlike Canadian providers, they understand what the word “unlimited” means, as it relates to both text messaging and yes, even data plans!

Up here in the Great White North, that’s not the case. It seems as though our incumbents have the mysterious 1999 Oxford dictionary that’s missing the word “unlimited”– and I thought it was just an urban legend!

But last time I checked – and I admit, it was definitely a few years ago – “unlimited” meant “without limits”.

That’s right … a 1,500 sent text-message message limit is not unlimited. Neither is a 5,000 message limit.

Unlimited means unlimited!

And at a time when there’s a chance for new entrants to emerge on the Canadian wireless scene (thanks to the spectrum auction), this could be a great departure point for potential wireless providers looking to capture the highly coveted 13 to 30 demographic.

It’s not that every girl (or boy for that matter) in this group will send over 14,000 text messages in a month. But the reality is that text messaging usage rates are on the rise – coincidentally, at the same time prices for cellular plans and other add-ons are also increasing.

Before you go decrying this trend as false, take a look at the typical mobile-using teen that has a new, QWERTY smartphone and a plan that doesn’t provide any minutes, but instead gives a set number of sent text messages.

And if that’s the case, as more and more teens and young adults adopt similar cellular habits – due to decreasing costs of smartphones, combined with some good ol’ peer pressure – text messaging will arguably become the single most important feature of cell plans offered by new entrants, if it isn’t already.

After all, haven’t you heard – making a phone call instead of texting is so 1990s!

Get with the programme!

An end to the strike at York?!

2009-01-24T22:28:00.002-05:00

It's time for Israel and Hamas to work together ... otherwise, say hello to WWIII!

2009-01-15T21:37:00.002-05:00