Top of the evening to all...
No...it is not what you think, but it at least worked to get you to read.
The Provincial ordinance states clearly that bicycles are not allowed on the sidewalks. That is reasonable. Collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are not healthy for anyone. The Provincial laws state further that bicycles are entitled to a full lane of traffic.
Taking a full lane is not a good way for a cyclist to make friends and influence people. Drivers really do not appreciate such use of the roads by the slowpokes on the bicycles. Many drivers are also not aware that cyclists are legally entitled to the full lane. It takes a cyclist with nerves of steel to withstand the pile-up of vehicles in the rear while maintaining a spot in traffic. Most of us do not like to do that. We thus stick to the sides of the road as much as possible. Staying in the centre of the lane is uncomfortable and dangerous. As well, most serious riders try to avoid irking the drivers.
I often have the need to head south along Bathurst St on my trusty steed of steel. I wear a helmet and reflective gear. After all, I take time to reflect when I ride. Here is the challenge. The side of Bathurst St is rough more often than not. There are holes. There are patched potholes. Sometimes, in order to have a smooth (safe) ride that does not jar my shoulders and back, I have to make the choice of swerving way out into traffic, often as much as a metre and a half, or hitting some of the rough pavement and flipping the bicycle.
It is an unreasonable choice.
So here are the options for a cyclist on Bathurst St.
1. Ride in the middle of the lane, where it is more or less safe and smooth, but where drivers will really be annoyed.
2. Ride along the side of the road, and risk life, limb, and bicycle due to the horrendous condition of the road.
3. Ride on the sidewalk, and risk a ticket in the amount of $110.
I am getting awfully close to choice #3. The city is obligated to provide a safe means of getting around town for all commuters, including those on only two wheels. My taxes pay for that concern. If the city is unable to do its job, I have to consider my own safety.
This is a tough decision. This cyclist takes the rules of the road very seriously.
Have a good evening everyone.
R/SCG
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
I Am Not Christian....
Top of the evening everyone...
I just saw an article on Fox News. Here is the link. There is a movement amongst our Christian friends and neighbours to wear orange. Some are wearing orange in the form of those little lapel ribbons that have become so ubiquitous over the last few years. Others are including orange in whatever they might wear to Church on Sunday.
I believe that I will go upstairs and see if I have an orange kippah. I am not Christian. I look terrible in orange. Nonetheless, I will take part in it.
The reason is that the lovable folks from ISIS are forcing Christians to wear orange as they walk to their executions. It is no different from the yellow stars that Jews were forced to wear during the Shoah.
I am reminded though of the statement from the Protestant minister of that time. First they came for the communists. I did not speak up, because I am not a communist. And so on...Christians are only the first ones on the menu for the insatiable appetites of these beasts. I stand with those Christians for two reasons. They are being targeted specifically. Everyone else is next.
You should stand with them too.
As we note the 70th anniversary of the end of the Shoah, we say "never again." It is happening again. It is happening in North Korea. It is happening in the Levant. I do not know what we can do about North Korea. As concerns the Levant, we have just been offered a way to be in unity with the victims. I seize that opportunity.
I call on all of you to seize that opportunity as well.
Good evening to all.
R/SCG
I just saw an article on Fox News. Here is the link. There is a movement amongst our Christian friends and neighbours to wear orange. Some are wearing orange in the form of those little lapel ribbons that have become so ubiquitous over the last few years. Others are including orange in whatever they might wear to Church on Sunday.
I believe that I will go upstairs and see if I have an orange kippah. I am not Christian. I look terrible in orange. Nonetheless, I will take part in it.
The reason is that the lovable folks from ISIS are forcing Christians to wear orange as they walk to their executions. It is no different from the yellow stars that Jews were forced to wear during the Shoah.
I am reminded though of the statement from the Protestant minister of that time. First they came for the communists. I did not speak up, because I am not a communist. And so on...Christians are only the first ones on the menu for the insatiable appetites of these beasts. I stand with those Christians for two reasons. They are being targeted specifically. Everyone else is next.
You should stand with them too.
As we note the 70th anniversary of the end of the Shoah, we say "never again." It is happening again. It is happening in North Korea. It is happening in the Levant. I do not know what we can do about North Korea. As concerns the Levant, we have just been offered a way to be in unity with the victims. I seize that opportunity.
I call on all of you to seize that opportunity as well.
Good evening to all.
R/SCG
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
The Partisanship of the Press....
Good evening everyone...
My father-in-law and I have an ongoing argument. He reads CNN on line. I go to Fox. He is probably right.
So if he is probably right, why do I not go to CNN, or perhaps to MSNBC for the news? The reason is that I used to do that. I found though that the anti-Israel bias was too much for me to accept. Fox is far more biased towards Israel. Jennifer and I used to receive the Toronto Star. We now receive the National Post. The reason is the same - bias.
There is a greater question though. What happened to just getting a straight reporting of facts from the news? What happened to an editorial page that was more or less balanced? It is a problem. In the US, the news organizations on the left in the US believe that the President can do no wrong. Those on the right - if the President donated a kidney to save a life, they would paint him as conniving for political reasons. It makes it very difficult to figure out what is the reality on the ground.
The reason that this comes to mind now has to do with Hillary Clinton. As you are all likely aware, she conducted State Department business on her private e-mail account. We will ignore the fact that any correspondence from a member of the government in the performance of his/her job is a matter of public record. That means that if the Secretary of State replies to an e-mail with 'LOL,' that response is a Freedom of Information Act concern. To delete those e-mails is problematic. To use a server that would require a subpoena for the information is also problematic.
I care, but people on the higher echelons of government can figure this out.
I have two e-mail accounts that are subject to the regulations concerning federal records. Once upon a time, I used to communicate informally with the Navy via my personal e-mail account. Then the Navy decided that that was no longer allowed. Then the Navy decided to start enforcing the change. One of my commanding officers sent me a nasty-gram about it after I persisted in using my personal e-mail account.
So my question is: why do I get in trouble for this and Hillary Clinton thus far does not? The president's cabinet is on a far higher level than I am. To enforce these regulations on some but not on others is lousy leadership. Selective enforcement leads to selective obedience.
I started this blog entry with concern about bias in the press. Would someone whose politics lie somewhere to left of the spectrum please offer me an answer? I am certain that I am missing something.
Have a good evening.
R/SCG
My father-in-law and I have an ongoing argument. He reads CNN on line. I go to Fox. He is probably right.
So if he is probably right, why do I not go to CNN, or perhaps to MSNBC for the news? The reason is that I used to do that. I found though that the anti-Israel bias was too much for me to accept. Fox is far more biased towards Israel. Jennifer and I used to receive the Toronto Star. We now receive the National Post. The reason is the same - bias.
There is a greater question though. What happened to just getting a straight reporting of facts from the news? What happened to an editorial page that was more or less balanced? It is a problem. In the US, the news organizations on the left in the US believe that the President can do no wrong. Those on the right - if the President donated a kidney to save a life, they would paint him as conniving for political reasons. It makes it very difficult to figure out what is the reality on the ground.
The reason that this comes to mind now has to do with Hillary Clinton. As you are all likely aware, she conducted State Department business on her private e-mail account. We will ignore the fact that any correspondence from a member of the government in the performance of his/her job is a matter of public record. That means that if the Secretary of State replies to an e-mail with 'LOL,' that response is a Freedom of Information Act concern. To delete those e-mails is problematic. To use a server that would require a subpoena for the information is also problematic.
I care, but people on the higher echelons of government can figure this out.
I have two e-mail accounts that are subject to the regulations concerning federal records. Once upon a time, I used to communicate informally with the Navy via my personal e-mail account. Then the Navy decided that that was no longer allowed. Then the Navy decided to start enforcing the change. One of my commanding officers sent me a nasty-gram about it after I persisted in using my personal e-mail account.
So my question is: why do I get in trouble for this and Hillary Clinton thus far does not? The president's cabinet is on a far higher level than I am. To enforce these regulations on some but not on others is lousy leadership. Selective enforcement leads to selective obedience.
I started this blog entry with concern about bias in the press. Would someone whose politics lie somewhere to left of the spectrum please offer me an answer? I am certain that I am missing something.
Have a good evening.
R/SCG
Monday, March 16, 2015
An Apology....Really?
Top of the evening everyone.
As many of you are aware, the Secretary of State is presently in Zurich trying to hammer out an agreement with Iran on Iran's nuclear program (more on that in a minute). Many of you are also aware that a large number of US senators signed and sent a letter to the Iranians about those negotiations. The President called the letter destructive. The Iranians brought up the letter in the discussions with Secretary Kerry.
Secretary Kerry was asked if he intended to apologize for that letter. Appropriately, he said he would not. His reason was that he did not feel the need to apologize for a letter initiated by someone who had been a senator for less than 60 days.
Right answer...wrong reason.
Right answer...right reason? We will not apologize. We may give it some thought, or not. While we are giving it some thought, or not, perhaps the Iranian government might think about apologizing to the US for invading our sovereign territory in 1979. Perhaps it might apologize to the US for holding its citizens hostage for 444 days. Perhaps it might consider apologizing for planning to assassinate a member of the Saudi royal family on US territory just a couple of years ago. It is a long list.
As concerns US-Iranian negotiations, 1986 comes to mind. In the fall of that year, President Reagan went to Iceland for a summit with Mikhael Gorbachev. For a long time, that was called a failed summit. History appears now to be showing that the Reykjavik summit was crucial to the demise of the Soviet Union.
At that summit, President Reagan brought to the table a point of concern about the USSR. It was one of human rights. It had never been mentioned. This concern of human rights might be an issue right now, given that Iran's record in this area is dismal at best. "Where is my vote(?)" was the mantra of the so-called Green Revolution in 2009.
Upon his return to the US, President Reagan addressed the country from the Oval Office. He made the following statement: "for a government that will break faith with its own people can not be trusted to keep faith with foreign powers."
Why are even considering trusting these people?
Have a good evening.
R/SCG
As many of you are aware, the Secretary of State is presently in Zurich trying to hammer out an agreement with Iran on Iran's nuclear program (more on that in a minute). Many of you are also aware that a large number of US senators signed and sent a letter to the Iranians about those negotiations. The President called the letter destructive. The Iranians brought up the letter in the discussions with Secretary Kerry.
Secretary Kerry was asked if he intended to apologize for that letter. Appropriately, he said he would not. His reason was that he did not feel the need to apologize for a letter initiated by someone who had been a senator for less than 60 days.
Right answer...wrong reason.
Right answer...right reason? We will not apologize. We may give it some thought, or not. While we are giving it some thought, or not, perhaps the Iranian government might think about apologizing to the US for invading our sovereign territory in 1979. Perhaps it might apologize to the US for holding its citizens hostage for 444 days. Perhaps it might consider apologizing for planning to assassinate a member of the Saudi royal family on US territory just a couple of years ago. It is a long list.
As concerns US-Iranian negotiations, 1986 comes to mind. In the fall of that year, President Reagan went to Iceland for a summit with Mikhael Gorbachev. For a long time, that was called a failed summit. History appears now to be showing that the Reykjavik summit was crucial to the demise of the Soviet Union.
At that summit, President Reagan brought to the table a point of concern about the USSR. It was one of human rights. It had never been mentioned. This concern of human rights might be an issue right now, given that Iran's record in this area is dismal at best. "Where is my vote(?)" was the mantra of the so-called Green Revolution in 2009.
Upon his return to the US, President Reagan addressed the country from the Oval Office. He made the following statement: "for a government that will break faith with its own people can not be trusted to keep faith with foreign powers."
Why are even considering trusting these people?
Have a good evening.
R/SCG
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Global Warming...
Top of the evening to all...
I was half right. I said that this winter would not be as bad as last winter. The first half really was not. The second half has been way too cold, and on average colder than last winter.
I am further aware of much of the discussion over the last several years about global warming. I am not sure that I believe in it. There is simply too much that we do not know.
That being said, I fully support the concept of global warming. I would like to see a little bit of it. I would like to see it soon...here...in Toronto.
(Sigh) extra layers again tomorrow.
Stay warm folks.
R/SCG
I was half right. I said that this winter would not be as bad as last winter. The first half really was not. The second half has been way too cold, and on average colder than last winter.
I am further aware of much of the discussion over the last several years about global warming. I am not sure that I believe in it. There is simply too much that we do not know.
That being said, I fully support the concept of global warming. I would like to see a little bit of it. I would like to see it soon...here...in Toronto.
(Sigh) extra layers again tomorrow.
Stay warm folks.
R/SCG
Tradition!!
Top of the evening to all....
I have been wondering lately as to how a tradition becomes a tradition. Some customs are around for years, but remain only on a small scale. Other things become tradition overnight.
One of the wonderful modern traditions is the song 'Oseh Shalom.' It is sung in most congregations in North America at some point during a service. Everyone knows it. People join right in. The version most people know is by an Israeli songwriter named Nurit Hirsh. It is the quintessential 'Oseh Shalom.' Here is a link to it: Nurit Hirsh.
Nurit Hirsh composed this in 1969.
Another tune, and my favourite, is by Debbie Friedman. Here it is: Debbie Friedman.
Debbie Friedman composed this in 1981.
What I do not understand is how one composition became the version that the Children of Israel sang at Mt. Sinai, while another just did not. With only 12 years between the two compositions, they were composed at the same time in terms of the history of Jewish music.
I prefer Debbie Friedman's version. It is the one we sang when I was in camp. When done well, the counterpoint is wonderful.
Happy listening.
R/SCG
I have been wondering lately as to how a tradition becomes a tradition. Some customs are around for years, but remain only on a small scale. Other things become tradition overnight.
One of the wonderful modern traditions is the song 'Oseh Shalom.' It is sung in most congregations in North America at some point during a service. Everyone knows it. People join right in. The version most people know is by an Israeli songwriter named Nurit Hirsh. It is the quintessential 'Oseh Shalom.' Here is a link to it: Nurit Hirsh.
Nurit Hirsh composed this in 1969.
Another tune, and my favourite, is by Debbie Friedman. Here it is: Debbie Friedman.
Debbie Friedman composed this in 1981.
What I do not understand is how one composition became the version that the Children of Israel sang at Mt. Sinai, while another just did not. With only 12 years between the two compositions, they were composed at the same time in terms of the history of Jewish music.
I prefer Debbie Friedman's version. It is the one we sang when I was in camp. When done well, the counterpoint is wonderful.
Happy listening.
R/SCG
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Noncombatant Status According to the Geneva Conventions....
Hi all....
You are all aware that I am a military chaplain. I will be one forever. Upon retiring from the Navy, the letters 'CHC' (Chaplain Corps) will remain as part of my official identification for the rest of my life.
According to the Geneva Conventions, chaplains are non-combatants. In the US, this means that we do not carry weapons. We have a bodyguard in the field at all times. It means that the enemy is not allowed to target us deliberately. It means that we cannot be POW's. We are detainees.
The question of being a detainee is not one of mere semantics. The Conventions continue in Article III, Convention 33, stating that if we are held as detainees, the detaining power is required to let us continue to perform our functions. The same holds true for medical personnel.
I was with a Marine battalion on September 11th, 2001. We were in the air, headed up to Bridgeport, California for mountain warfare training and an exercise with the Royal Marines. This was up in the Sierra Nevadas. It was late September, and it was gorgeous. On the last night of the exercise, seven or eight Royal Marines 'killed' our perimeter guard and overran our camp. I woke up with a Royal Marine in my face yelling "whar's yer weapon?" I showed him my hands and said 'chaplain.' He left me alone, and 'shot' my bodyguard instead.
It is of small comfort that if the US ever goes toe to toe with the British, my status will be respected.
Protocol I, Article 41 states that POW's (and detainees) are not to be targets of attack. They are to be protected, and all feasible precautions shall be taken to ensure their safety.
My friends, we have seen the treachery that the kind folks in Northern Syria and Iraq have had to offer us lately. Most recently, they have burned a captured Jordanian pilot alive. This is beyond negotiation. This is a war on the norms of humanity. It must be treated as such.
King Abdullah of Jordan has stated that Jordan's wrath will be visited on the perpetrators until Jordan "runs out of fuel and bullets."
This is the right approach. One does not go to war to lose. One does not play war to a draw. One goes to war with the approach of utterly destroying an enemy. Anything short of that goal will render a war that does not end.
I commend the Jordanians for having such clarity of goal. It is a shame that such clarity is lacking in other national leaders.
We should all send our deepest sympathies to the family and to the nation of the murdered pilot. His name was LT Muath al Kaseasbeh. He had a family. He had friends. May his memory be for a blessing, and may we maintain the resolve to make absolutely certain that the perpetrators of this horrendous crime never sleep soundly again.
For the record, I will not, under any circumstances, maintain my status as a non-combatant if I am mobilized to go there.
Have a good evening everyone.
R/SCG
You are all aware that I am a military chaplain. I will be one forever. Upon retiring from the Navy, the letters 'CHC' (Chaplain Corps) will remain as part of my official identification for the rest of my life.
According to the Geneva Conventions, chaplains are non-combatants. In the US, this means that we do not carry weapons. We have a bodyguard in the field at all times. It means that the enemy is not allowed to target us deliberately. It means that we cannot be POW's. We are detainees.
The question of being a detainee is not one of mere semantics. The Conventions continue in Article III, Convention 33, stating that if we are held as detainees, the detaining power is required to let us continue to perform our functions. The same holds true for medical personnel.
I was with a Marine battalion on September 11th, 2001. We were in the air, headed up to Bridgeport, California for mountain warfare training and an exercise with the Royal Marines. This was up in the Sierra Nevadas. It was late September, and it was gorgeous. On the last night of the exercise, seven or eight Royal Marines 'killed' our perimeter guard and overran our camp. I woke up with a Royal Marine in my face yelling "whar's yer weapon?" I showed him my hands and said 'chaplain.' He left me alone, and 'shot' my bodyguard instead.
It is of small comfort that if the US ever goes toe to toe with the British, my status will be respected.
Protocol I, Article 41 states that POW's (and detainees) are not to be targets of attack. They are to be protected, and all feasible precautions shall be taken to ensure their safety.
My friends, we have seen the treachery that the kind folks in Northern Syria and Iraq have had to offer us lately. Most recently, they have burned a captured Jordanian pilot alive. This is beyond negotiation. This is a war on the norms of humanity. It must be treated as such.
King Abdullah of Jordan has stated that Jordan's wrath will be visited on the perpetrators until Jordan "runs out of fuel and bullets."
This is the right approach. One does not go to war to lose. One does not play war to a draw. One goes to war with the approach of utterly destroying an enemy. Anything short of that goal will render a war that does not end.
I commend the Jordanians for having such clarity of goal. It is a shame that such clarity is lacking in other national leaders.
We should all send our deepest sympathies to the family and to the nation of the murdered pilot. His name was LT Muath al Kaseasbeh. He had a family. He had friends. May his memory be for a blessing, and may we maintain the resolve to make absolutely certain that the perpetrators of this horrendous crime never sleep soundly again.
For the record, I will not, under any circumstances, maintain my status as a non-combatant if I am mobilized to go there.
Have a good evening everyone.
R/SCG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)