| Bonny's profileBeePhotosBlogLists |  Tools  Help |
|
March 15 Best Taiwanese Parliament Fights of All TimeIf you haven't seen a fight in the "Taiwanese Parliament", check out the following link. If you've seen it, watch it anyway it's hilarious.
 Who says that Chinese people can't fight? Then again, some of these folks would probably claim that they are *not* Chinese, but are "taiwanese".
(How can you tell that I'm supposed to be doing work?) Before Brokeback MountainHarper beats them all to the Brokeback jokes - years ago!
By the way, in a pure coincidence, Mrs. Harper's name happens to be Laureen (Jack's wife's name is Lureen).
Wallowing in MiseryI don't know what to make of the story of Gary and Sherry Leskun.
The couple was married in 1978 and had a child together. In 1998, Mr. Leskun met someone else while on a business trip, and decided to divorce Ms. Leskun. The divorce came at a very, very bad time in her life - she lost her job, her family started dying (father, brother, two sistesr-in-law, step-mother), her oldest child has MS and she suffered a devastating back injury. She maintained that she could not work (and has not been able to since the divorce) because of the devastating effects of the breakdown of the marriage, specifically the way he walked out on her. That, she argued, entitled her to receive ongoing support payments from Mr. Leskun.
The entire woeful tale can be read at http://canlii.com/bc/cas/bcca/2004/2004bcca422.html
I have considerable sympathy for Ms. Leskun's situation. To say that her life fell apart in 1998 would be an understatement. It is impossible for an outsider to truly understand the situation and how she felt. And this entry is not intended to comment on her specific situation.
What I'm wondering is, as a general matter, how long is one allowed to wallow in one's own misery and continue to blame someone else for one's inability to move on? I suppose with respect to marriage, an argument can be made that there is an expectation of permanence - "I thought when you said 'till death do us part' you really meant it" - which justifies an ongoing obligation despite relationship breakdown. But that speaks to obligation, not what I'm trying to get at, which is: at what point is it OK to say to the "victim" that despite the very horrible thing that happened to him/her, s/he simply has to pick up the pieces and move on?
Imagine that a person suffering a devastating fall. He tumbled face-first into a hard surface. He broke some bones and it hurt a lot. Over time, his broken bones and wounds healed, perhaps not perfectly, but they healed. If he's still flopping around on the ground moaning about the fall at that point, what would we think of him? What if his wounds didn't heal properly because he refused to try to get up and kept rolling in the mud in a showing of misery, causing his wounds to be infected? Is his misery still attributable to the original fall?
Emotional wounds are of course much more difficult to see, measure, and perhaps, heal. Which is what makes the question a difficult one to answer. My instinct says "come on, you owe it to yourself to pull yourself together" but I can readily imagine situations in which one simply cannot pull oneself together, where the injury suffered is so devastating that the person is rendered incapable of standing up on his/her own. Do I think being dumped by one's partner is one of those injuries? I must say that marital breakdown isn't one of the things I had in mind; but, depending on the situation, it could be. No one really knows what happened in Gary and Sherry Leskun's relationship, except the two of them. March 13 Canadian Troops Risk Lives, Provide Harper with Photo-op"Come, get me a couple of minority Marines... eh GIs... eh... whatever. I flew all the way out here I want my photo op!"
March 02 Stephen Harper, Seal Saviour?After Robert Latimer identified Mr. Harper as his new hope of getting out of jail, Paul McCartney is hopeful that Mr. Harper will save the seals. Mr. McCartney is quoted as saying:
Hmm... really????
Cell Phones in CarsDoes banning cell phone use while driving make sense?
I've always been of the view that people are overly sensitive when it comes to other people's cell phone use. Sure, talking loudly on one's cell phone while in a bus / subway car / elevator / restaurant is annoying, but so is talking loudly in public places in general. Talking on the cell phone while driving may distract the driver and cause traffic accidents, but so do eating breakfast / lunch / dinner, applying makeup, and clipping one's nails while driving (all of which I have witnessed). Why not ban those things too?
The silly thing about the bill that's currently considered by the Ontario Legislature is that it permits hands-free phones. Is there evidence that the holding of the cell phone using one hand is what causes accidents? I am open to be persuaded, but I would think that the distraction is caused by being engaged in the conversation, not the physical act of holding the phone. Banning cell phone use in this manner makes as much sense as turning the car radio down while looking for an address -- it simply doesn't help.
Stephen Harper is Robert Latimer's New Hope?Regardless of whether one thinks that what Mr. Latimer did to his daughter is deserving of criminal liability and punishment, I just don't understand why Mr. Latimer thinks Mr. Harper's party being in power is going to help him. If anything, Mr. Harper and his religious buddies would probably think that he got off easy with a conviction for second degree murder.
The only way I think Mr. Harper and his church buddies are going to be sympathetic is if Mr. Latimer claims that "God spoke to me and told me to do such-and-such". I mean, it's entirely probable that this happened, right?? If God spoke to Mr. Harper's buddy Mr. Bush and told him to invade Iraq, why not??? (For that hilarious and/or scary story, see http://spaces.msn.com/supersonic-beetle/blog/cns!2F80CDD834D4223D!183.entry)
Sorry, I will stop being sarcastic... for today.
Latimer's plea from behind bars: 'I want a new trial'Last Updated Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:03:55 ESTRobert Latimer, who has served half of a 10-year sentence for killing his daughter in 1993, says he hopes the new federal government and Canada's top court will intervene in his case.
"I want a new trial," Latimer told CBC News in the first television interview he's given since going to prison. "I want a jury to be able to decide whether my actions were criminal or not," Latimer said. He said the justice system that convicted him lacked understanding of the condition of his daughter Tracy, who had a severe form of cerebral palsy. "I really don't think this court has a realistic appreciation of just what was going on at the time," said Latimer. Case went to Supreme Court His case was initially heard in the Saskatchewan courts before going to the Supreme Court of Canada. At the time of her death, Tracy was a 40-pound quadriplegic, a 12-year-old who functioned at the level of a three-month-old. Latimer, a Saskatoon-area farmer, maintains that he killed his daughter as an act of mercy. He said she was in a lot of pain, despite what others have asserted. "The doctor says [she was in pain]. Yet the community living groups say she enjoyed bowling." Slams 'bogus claims' "The courts have really, by their endorsements, allowed all these bogus claims to float," added Latimer. "I mean, the courts are really no more honest than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers who were running around confirming guilty verdicts before the first trial of me before 1994 or something." On Oct. 24, 1993, Latimer placed Tracy in the cab of his Chevy pickup, ran a hose from the exhaust to the cab, climbed into the box of the truck, sat on a tire and watched her die, he has admitted. On Nov. 4 that year, Latimer was charged with first-degree murder. He was convicted of second-degree murder a year later. After a seven-year legal battle, the Supreme Court eventually upheld his conviction and life sentence, with no parole for 10 years. Now, Latimer is hoping the newly elected Conservatives under Prime Minister Stephen Harper will help him. Prepares counter-arguments Working alone, he's compiled a book on his counter-arguments to the decision that put him in jail. "I was arrested over 12 years ago. And it took them almost seven years to come to this conclusion, and I think they're going to have to re-conclude again," he said. Latimer spoke of the time lost in "five years of being locked up," when asked if he is bitter or angry. "People have to have the ability to appreciate that. The courts don't seem to think it was much." March 01 Mr. Klein, which step are you on?Doing "the steps" may be leading Ralph Klein towards sobriety (or not), but they are definitely having an impact on his self-control, or the lack thereof. This story is pretty funny, although the girl who got the 80-page book thrown at her may not think so.
February 24 The Tories start shredding the country... againThe Tories have started to, in Margaret Atwood's words, shred the country -- again. And what better place to start than killing funding for government subsidized daycare?
Harper thinks he's got a simple, good idea -- $1,200 per year per offspring under the age of 6. Money in one's pocket has got to be a good thing, right? Not necessarily.
$1,200 per year per offspring for families who are well-off enough to have one parent (usually the mother) stay home with the offspring(s) is nice. It may go towards such worthy goods such as organic baby food, extra cushy strollers with big wheels, and designer children's clothes. The odd (very odd) bleeding-heart goody-goody couple may decide to give their live-in nanny from the Philippines a modest raise.
$1,200 per year per offspring for families of typical middle class existence (or below) combined with no or reduced access to government subsidized daycare space is zero help when it costs up to $800 per month to place a child in private daycare (http://www.childcareontario.org/library/ONchildcarestats2005.pdf; http://www.moneysense.ca/spending/credit_debt/article.jsp?content=20040423_142424_4924).
And why $1,200? Where does that number come from? I'd like to know.
So the Tories think they have a mandate (see below) to kill funding for government subsidized daycare. So according to them, they also think they have a mandate to:
* join the stupid War in Iraq (it's never too late!)
* strip gay and lesbian couples of the right to marry
* pretty much anything that the Tories said that they'd like to do
And these clowns have only got a minority government by the slimest of margins!
This is only the beginning.
February 22 VictimsI am suspicious of people who take on the role of victim too readily. Such individuals (a) refuse to accept any responsibility whatsoever for whatever misfortunes that have befallen them and (b) use their misfortunes to justify their own bad behaviour and subsequent failure in life.
Think of Steve Moore. The fact that two years later he's still crying like a baby telling his story to anyone who has nothing better to do than listen to him indicates that he is still in full victim mode. His lawyer said Moore still felt the effects of the concussion. Poor Stevie. But consider this: if your focus in life for two years is to tell everyone how you've been screwed and how sorry they should be for you because you're now lame and useless, it is not surprising that you *are* lame and useless.
I am not saying that Moore had not suffered, or that he is not deserving of some compensation for what has been done to him (although certainly not $15 million, not even 10% of that). My point is that: one can never recover until one moves on. The obsession with revenge and garnering public sympathy stands in the way of any chance of turning over a page and starting anew. January 25 The Bizzaro Re-election of Nina GrewalSpeaking of people who voted for the conservatives, how about the good people who sent Nina Grewal back to Ottawa? I came across the following bizzaro article in the Globe and Mail on her:
Apparently she did a handstand in her office just to show the reporter that she could. And of course she knew nothing about her husband telling Ujjal Dosanjh that he and Nina could be bought for a price, taping the conversation, editing it, translating it inaccurately and then releasing to the media.
Why of course, she only sleeps with the guy, why would she know anything about that?!
Interestingly, the federal ethics commissioner cleared Dosanjh of any wrongdoing, and stated that Gurmant Grewal either genuinely sought an inducement to change his vote or just acted the part in an attempt to entrap Dosanjh. Either way, few strokes short of a man with integrity. Few strokes short of a man, really.
This was what Nina had to say about her husband (see Globe and Mail article):
Either Nina was really clueless as to what the man whom she shares a bed with every night is up to, or she was outright lying. Even if we are to give her the benefit of the doubt and attribute her statement to the former reason, is a person with such low level of intelligence someone you want to represent you in Parliament?
And she also said she would "smack" her opponent, Liberal candidate Brenda Locke, if she dared bringing up her husband's sins. Her exact words were:
Here's to the good job by the people of Fleetwood-Port Kells (Surrey) who sent such an intelligent, clear-minded and totally non-violent individual to represent you in Parliament.
ShuddersThe thought that Stephen Harper is going to be our PM continues to send shudders down my spine. Pushing that repugnant thought aside, here's an obvious question: who's to blame?
There are a variety of choices:
But the most of all, I blame Peter MacKay and the Progressive Conservative Party (R.I.P.) members for allowing a right-wing extremist party to takeover the conservative banner and use it to dress up as a legitimate choice for Canadians. No doubt, some people in the former P.C. thought that the merger / takeover was necessary for the survival or success of conservatism in Canada. How short-sighted. The P.C. was so demoralized by years of Liberal success and their own incompetence that they failed to see any light at the end of the tunnel. So they turned to the devil. Sounds like the plot of some weekly late-night movie.
I like to ask those "what-if" questions, and I've got one right now. If the P.C. still existed at this past election, my guess is that many more people would have abandoned the Liberals and voted for them than people who dumped the Liberals for the Conservatives. The P.C. would be forming the next government - and who knows, it might have been a majority instead of a minority. And the Reform Party would have been put in its correct place, at the fringe of Canadian politics.
Instead, Stephen Harper is going to be our PM.
Peter MacKay, you could have been Prime Minister-elect today if you had not sold out your party and your colleagues for nothing. Belinda did not leave you because she was evil (as your friends no doubt tell you); she simply realized that you have even fewer brain cells than Harper. January 17 Thank Goodness Zhang Ziyi Didn't WinI watched the Golden Globes tonight night. A few of the actors I like won (yay to Mary Louise Parker beating out the desperate housewives). But the anxious moment of the evening came when Leonardo DiCaprio was about to announce the winner for Best Actress in a Drama (or something like that). I was thinking, "Please, let it NOT be Zhang Ziyi!" The thought of having to endure any more of her embarassingly bad English - displayed in all its scripted glory on stage in front of live television, no less - had me reaching for the remote so that I can switch channels should the unfortunate happen. To my relief, Felicity Huffman was the winner. So my ears and my face were saved from having to hear her and then blushing in embarassment on her behalf.
Moments earlier when the camera was pointed at Ms. Zhang, she broke into a school-girlish giggle, which is less than classy but I suppose a lot of men like that. And then she did the unthinkable: she gave the "V" victory sign. AAAAAAAAhhhh! Whoever is coaching her should be fired, along with her English teacher. I guess I should not be too severe on Ms. Zhang. Afterall, I have been known to do the "V" sign -- WHEN I WAS 15!!! January 07 I woke, and it's 2006!Just read in the paper that 蔡一智 and 黃家強 are getting married this year (not to each other but to their respective girlfriends). It's news but not that big (eclipsed, particularly, by the news that 梁詠琪鄭伊健6年情玩完). What I caught my attention was the side-note that 蔡一智 and 黃家強 are 41 both years old. Geez... when I first started listening to Beyond, 黃家強 was around 27. Where did all the time in between go? It just does not seem that long ago that, at the height of their popularity, all my friends and I were collecting newspaper and magazine clippings of these guys. This is scary stuff!
It is as if the revival of all things 80s is designed to remind those of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s that we are no longer kids by any measure. Someone who is now 18 has no meaningful recollection of 海闊天空 or the death of 家駒, experiences that are watersheds of sorts for me - events in my life happened either before or after 家駒 passed away. I guess that's how the so-called "generation gaps" happen.
Vancouver Tree-KillerSo, the 72-year-old tree-killer received an absolute discharge for poisoning several trees in front of her condo that were blocking her million-dollar view of the English Bay. I don't know how I feel about that.
On one hand, I think she should have been made to pay the fine. She deliberately planned and carry out a murder of several living things that had existed much longer than her - than all of us, really. This is a person who did her research, travelled to the states to buy the poison because it was not available / banned in Canada, and was "smart" enough to transfer the poison out of its original container into another before going through Customs. She destroyed public property because, for the 6 months of the year when the trees had leaves, her view was blocked.
On the other hand, it sounds like she's suffered more than the law can do to her - she's paid $50,000 to the Parks Board in compensation, had stuff thrown at her balcony, received angry emails, and ultimately sold her place because she couldn't put up with the public outrage. Plus, she's 72. We're all into giving the old folks a break, right?
But still, on balance I find it impossible to feel sorry for her. I know that money isn't everything and doesn't buy happiness yada yada, but she sold her condo for just under $1.7 million. So I'm sure that she can buy another place with an unblocked view easily. And I don't see how "public approbation" can be mitigating circumstances. January 06 Don't mess with womenOne cloudy day in Vancouver, on a westbound 41 bus, two middle-aged Chinese ladies got onto the bus with their respective babies in strollers. Lady #2 had problems with the ridiculous bus tickets (it can only be validated by the machine if inserted exactly the right way). Meanwhile, an able-bodied white guy in his 20s sat in a seat meant for the handicapped, the aged, the pregnant, and people with small kids etc. near the front door. He did not offer help. Not that he is obliged to. But read on.
Ticket was finally validated, and Chinese lady #2 strugged to push the stroller down the narrow aisle. She did not get far. Another passenger belatedly decided to get off the bus via the front door. The aisle is narrow. Chinese lady #2 did her best to get out of the way. At this point, white guy in his 20s decided to scream at Chinese lady #2: "People are trying to get off!" Chinese lady #2 ignored the idiot and continued to maneuver the stroller, with little success as aisle is narrow and the bus is crowded. The two ladies decided that the fastest way of getting the stroller out of the way was to lift it, with the baby inside it, off the ground, over Chinese lady #1's stroller, into a vacant space in a corner that cannot be otherwise accessed. They did so without incident. White guy in his 20s then yelled: "You people are so ignorant. Don't you know anything about child safety?"
Chinese lady #2 countered: "Child is safe. Why do you yell at me?"
White guy in his 20s, perhaps stunned at her ability to understand and respond to his attack in English, said: "FOOK YOU." (Stupid MSN won't let me publish the entry w/ the expletive spelled correctly)
A number of passengers were visibly upset and a couple were getting up to confront white guy in his 20s. But that was not necessary. For Chinese lady #2 could took care of herself. "FOOK me? FOOK YOURSELF! FOOK YOU! You have no right to yell at me. Now shut up."
White guy in his 20s was by now completely wordless and shrank in his handicapped seat. He fled a couple of stops later.
Final note: although all this went down not five feet away from the bus driver, he did not see fit to lift a finger to assist the lady. He could have: (a) help move the stroller, (b) ask the other passenger to exist via the back door, which afterall is what it is for, (c) told white guy in his 20s to shut up. But I guess it wasn't in his job description.
But Chinese lady #2 was more than capable of taking care of things. Good on her.
Don't mess with women. If you are stupid enough to do so please, do yourself a favour and don't involve their kids in your insults or otherwise attack their parenting skills. December 23 University AdmissionsA friend of mine emailed me this article on university admissions. The article features some pretty misinformed (sometimes downright ignorant and racist) comments from people who seem to think that admission standards are "too high" and that their kids can't get into university because it's letting in too many "foreign students". The article does a pretty good job of refuting it with facts that are plain for everyone (everyone with a brain, which is not something to be taken for granted in these people) to see.
I think it's hilarious that the parents complain about their kids not getting into university because "the standards are too high". If university isn't a place to strive for high standards and excellence, we are in serious trouble. With loser parents like that, no wonder the kids are losers! These people should wake up and smell the coffee. Some of these parents went to universities in the 50s and 60s when the competition was 1/2 of what it is today because there were very few women in universities. So they could get away with C's in their transcripts and still get into university.
Rather than whinning, why don't people just admit that there are smarter people out there and to work and try to improve? I don't see how people can expect to get into university with C's and C-'s in their transcripts unless one is seriously delusional or has a completely unjustified sense of entitlement.
Maybe the shock felt by students and their parents is due in large part to the fact that teachers in highschool and elementary school are too lenient and eager to praise their students. Sure, it's important to build kids' self-esteem, but don't tell a kid that his essay is very good when in fact it's worth only a C. There has got to be a balance somewhere!
November 13 Out of Your LeagueWhen I was growing up in Hong Kong, I attended an all-girls Catholic school. Located right next door was an all-boys school. With nearly 3,000 girls and boys located in such close proximity, you'd expect a lot of "stuff" going on between the people in the two schools, right? But nothing can be further from the truth. I have never heard of anyone from our school having an interest in, much less dating, one of the boys from the other school.
The reason? We consider ourselves way out of their league.
You may think it strange that girls aged 13 to 18 would be such snobs or understand such concepts as "social class". But it was in us. We knew.
You see, ours was (and still is) a prestigeous school. Theirs was, should we say, less prestigeous.
One only has to look at the two schools' respective pages on the HK Education and Manpower Bureau website. Whereas our school's page features a picture of a student playing the piano and another playing the cello, their school's page features a bunch of students playing rock paper scissors.
The boys knew what we thought of them (and how little we thought of them). So they try to get our attention by throwing dusters at our girls from their classrooms they passed by on the way to the bus stop.
Instead of shrieking and running away, the girls stood their ground, counted the number of floors and windows to identify the classroom from which the attack had came from, and collected the dusters as evidence. Our school filed a complaint and several boys received reprimands.
We were mean girls, even back then. November 11 Remembrance Day NOT Holiday in OntarioI think it's ridiculous that Remembrance Day is not a holiday in Ontario. Of all the secular stat holidays, I think this is without a doubt the most important one. Why do we celebrate Victoria Day and the nameless "civic holiday" in August but not Remembrance Day?!
The only other province that has not designated Remembrance Day as a public holiday is Quebec. I say let them be the "distinct society" on this one.
Let us remember the veterans who fought for this country and for the freedom of men and women everywhere.
|
|
|
