Bucket List #101
#101 Bury a 10 year time capsule
I finally buried my time capsule.
When I created my list, I had an even 100 things on it. My friend @JSaggau and I thought it would be fun to add “burying a time capsule” to open in 10 years when we’ve finished our lists.
It was supposed to be the first goal completed; instead it’s my fifth.
But that’s close enough for me.
The capsule is small: I fit everything into a travel shampoo bottle.
The contents are simple: a letter to myself that I will read when I’m 28, a business card from my current job, some notes passed back and forth during my classes at Kwantlen and today’s horoscope.
For me, the letter is the most important item in the time capsule because in 10 years, I won’t remember what was going through my mind when I was 18.
Plus, it will be interesting to see if my life will turn out the way I thought it would.
5 down, 96 to go.
Tweet me!
@HayleyWoodin
PS: For the record, I beat @JSaggau to five. He owes me a drink.
Bucket List #72
#72 Eat something exotic
I work at a restaurant on White Rock beach.
The tips are good, as is the food, and during the summer it’s a great place to work.
The current special is fresh shucked oysters: they look disgusting, have an odd fishy smell and at a dollar a piece, they aren’t the cheapest treat available.
I love seafood. But I’ve never had the guts to try an oyster (see reasons above), (I have texture issues too).
At work tonight, the owner of the restaurant offered me one, hoping I’d show up the bartender who was too squeamish to try one.
Seeing as I had “eat something exotic” on my list, I decided to go for it.
It was delicious!
Topped with a dollop of some sort of spicy sauce, the oyster went down beautifully.
Tweet me!
@HayleyWoodin
Headlines 26/06/10
Here are my thoughts on today’s headlines. Everything but the titles is written by yours truly.
How the Supreme Court keeps information from us by Peter McKnight:
The right to information is not acknowledged in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, meaning that it doesn’t exist.
Having access to public or government records falls under “freedom of expression:” in other words, the only way to gain access to information is “where the access is necessary to permit meaningful discussion on a matter of public importance,” according to the Supreme Court.
Another thing that doesn’t exist is a clear and concise definition of the words “meaningful” and “importance.”
What all of this means, is that access to information will be granted on a case-by-case basis.
It also means that what is considered “meaningful” and of “public importance” can be interpreted to include a wide and varied number of cases, or to exclude almost any case.
At the heart of Facebook is an old-fashioned kaffeeklatsch by Shelley Fralic:
An interesting observation: the fastest-growing demographics on Facebook are women aged 35 to 50 and people over the age of 55, according to David Kirkpatrick, author of The Facebook Effect.
As older generations begin using newer technologies and social networking sites, will new media apps, sites and technologies be created to cater to the baby-boomer population?
Fortress Toronto: Loss of civil liberties part of an absurd price by Craig McInnes:
The G8 and G20 summits are underway in Toronto, with the help of $1-billion in security measures.
The six-kilometre long, three-metre high security wall complete with metal sheeting and concrete blocks, and over 10,000 police officers to guard it, is just a little menacing. However, the most menacing measure to protect the world leaders was not a part of the $1-billion budget.
From June 21 to June 28, police can arrest anyone who comes within five metres of the wall and refuses to provide identification or submit to a search.
The person “trespassing” on public property does not have to have been doing anything suspicious either.
But isn’t this a violation of our civil liberties?
Of course it is, but that doesn’t matter: the Ontario government passed the regulation June 2.
Headlines 25/06/10
Here are my thoughts on today’s headlines. Everything but the titles is written by yours truly.
Supreme Court to decide future of safe injection site by Janice Tibbetts:
Even after two court rulings that Vancouver’s Insite is allowed to stay open, the federal government has once again challenged the final verdict by taking the battle to the Supreme Court of Canada in the hopes of shutting the site down.
Before visiting Insite personally, I was strongly against its function: supplying needles to drug addicts on the downtown eastside, and essentially encouraging illegal drug use.
But after talking to some of the site’s facilitators, I now understand that this isn’t a black and white issue. The principle behind Insite is that addicts are going to use either way, so we may as well give them the option of injecting with clean needles, which reduces the risk of spreading HIV/AIDS or Hepatitis C.
The spread of said diseases not only affects users, it also puts a strain on the healthcare system.
Programs like Insite clearly don’t fall under conservative ideals, but what would shutting down the site be achieving?
If the Tories want to discourage drug use, a better first step would be tougher sentencing and penalties for drug related crimes, a step that would reduce the number of people relying on Insite for health purposes.
RCMP Taser use drops, but mentally ill remain more-frequent targets by Philip Ling:
Down from an all-time high in 2007 with 1,583 incidents, Taser use dropped to 276 incidents in 2009.
Since the public inquiry into the Tasering and death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski, new measures have been implemented to ensure the proper use of Tasers by RCMP.
Police are no longer allowed to use the weapon on uncooperative suspects, and are only supposed to be fired when there is a threat to the public or the police.
First nations want ‘reconciliation’ on issue of eagle-killing by Lori Culbert:
Canadian law prohibits the killing of eagles for any purpose, but First nations argue that their traditional practices, which involve killing eagles for the creation of special regalia, are constitutionally protected.
This issue is a part of a broader and ongoing dilemma: Canadian laws vs. constitutional rights.
Several years ago, the law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets was challenged by those whose religion requires them to wear a turban.
A similar conflict arose over whether or not women wearing a burqa should have to reveal their faces at airports when using passports.
First nations’ rights to practice tradition may be constitutionally protected, but so is the right to freedom of religion: if the government makes an exception for one group to operate outside of the laws we all abide by, then the same must go for all of the other groups.
Tweet me!
@HayleyWoodin
Green Zone and the War on Terror
The other night I watched Green Zone, the action/thriller/war movie starring Matt Damon.
The basic premise of the film is centered on the war in Iraq, life in the American green zone in Baghdad and the search for WMDs.
The movie was great, and although the plot was fictional, the movie’s underlying depictions of military goings-on overseas is fairly realistic and quite believable.
Earlier today I read Michael Hasting’s article in Rolling Stone magazine, The Runaway General, and I couldn’t help but draw certain comparisons between the article and the movie.
Even though Hasting’s piece revolves around the war in Afghanistan and the Paul Greengrass directed film takes place in Iraq, the relationships between and attitudes of the characters in the movie are eerily similar to those of the people in the journalistic piece.
Green Zone wasn’t merely a movie about good vs. evil: while American soldiers were in Iraq searching for WMDs and the “bad guys,” the “good guys” were also divided amongst themselves. The movie highlights the disconnect between the soldiers fighting the war and the men in suits mentally and theoretically fighting it. The disconnect is both apparent in the communication between both groups as well as in what each believes the overall goal of the mission to be.
Hasting’s piece highlights the same themes.
For example, Gen. Stanley McChrystal (the runaway general) shares in the article the lack of communication between the White House administration and the troops overseas.
Put simply, both sides have different ideas of how to go about successfully completing the country’s mission: ridding Afghanistan of Al Qaeda and installing a self-sufficient democratic government.
A power struggle between the elected leader of the country and the appointed leader in charge of enforcing American ideals in a foreign country splits the “good guys” right down the middle: the war’s politics is being fought between the military and the state of the same side.
The epitome of said disconnect and struggle is President Barack Obama’s dismissal of McChrystal after the publication of The Runaway General, wherein McChrystal openly voices his opinions about the White House administration.
There is always opposition to any decision or action, whether it’s the military’s counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy, or Matt Damon’s choice to disobey authority in his pursuit of a lead.
But the saying that there are two sides to every story seems a little too generic these days.
Tweet me!
@HayleyWoodin
Headlines 24/06/10
Here are my thoughts on today’s headlines. Everything but the titles is written by yours truly.
Loose lips sink generals, too by Sheldon Alberts, accompanied by Barbara Yaffe’s General’s self-destruction adds to doubts about Afghan mission:
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who commanded over U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, was dismissed by President Barack Obama on Wednesday over remarks made in Rolling Stone magazine criticizing Obama and White House senior civilian leaders.
McChrystal has been replaced by Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command and former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
In Canada, senators are recommending Parliament hold a debate on Canada’s future in Afghanistan, with the goal in mind of prolonging Canadian soldiers’ stay overseas.
This contrasts with Canadians’ views on the war: 59 per cent are opposed to the mission, according to a June 17 Angus Reid poll.
Costs are legitimate, watchdog says by Janice Tibbetts:
Canada’s budget for hosting the G8 and G20 summits has reached almost $1-billion.
But do the ends justify the means?
The issue usually focused on is whether or not a country’s spending is in line with what other host countries have spent on similar events.
A recently released 12-page expense report focused on said issue, but did not provide a value-for-money analysis.
Errant robot stalls containment effort by Kristen Hays and Ayesha Rascoe:
When is enough, enough?
Since April 20, the BP oil spill has spewed 15 times the amount of oil into the ocean than the amount spilt back in 1989 by the Exxon Valdez in Alaska.
Between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels are being leaked into the ocean each day, forcing the closure of rich fishing grounds, killing hundreds of turtles and seabirds and dozens of dophins, and ruining the coastlines of four states.
However, the Obama administration’s deep sea drilling ban, imposed until investigations are over and regulations are revised, may be refined in the weeks to come.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar suggested that some drilling in proven oilfields might move forward.