A Case of G20 Police Envy?

Last weekend, while the rest of Canada was watching the excellent police work/police brutality (depending on your point of view) at the G20 Summit in Toronto, the fine men and women who serve and protect my community were busy creating controversies of their own.

Ok, well maybe "controversy" is too strong a word - but dammit, they pissed me off!

I've lived in my house for 2 years.  It's in a townhouse complex where we have assigned parking.  But my house faces the street so most of the time I just park in front of my house.  Sometimes I park facing west (the correct way), sometimes I park facing east (the incorrect way).  It really depends on where I've come from.

For 2 straight years, parking has never been an issue.  Until last Sunday morning.

Last Saturday when I arrived home I parked facing east.  No big deal - like I said, I've done it hundreds of times.  But when I woke up in the morning, I had a ticket for parking the wrong way!

For those of you who are self-righteous and follow every rule, yes, I was parked facing the wrong way, so yes I deserved the ticket.  And yes I know that just because I've gotten away with it for 2 years doesn't mean I should be surprised that I did get ticketed.  Besides, it's a relatively inexpensive ticket.

None of that is what I'm upset about.

What pisses me off is the cars that race down my street at all hours of the day!  And it happens every single day without exception.  I live in a neighbourhood that is home to a ton of children, and there's a high school just down the road.  Yet I've seen cars blow right through the stop sign at the end of my street, and witnessed almost a half dozen serious close calls at the corner where another street feeds onto my street.  One of these days there WILL be an accident at that corner.  It's not a matter of "if" but "when".

We've called twice and asked the police to put a patrol car at that corner to slow down the traffic (and I know my next door neighbour has complained too).   Their response on both occasions - "I'm sorry, we simply don't have the manpower".

Really??  So what you're telling me is you don't have the manpower to ticket speeders and in all likelihood, save a life or two.  But at 4:00am on a Sunday morning, you have plenty of manpower to ticket cars that are parked the wrong way?? 

Is there something wrong with me that I don't understand this logic?

*sigh*

Has American Idol Jumped the Shark?

As I was watching the American Idol auditions tonight, I couldn't help but wonder if the show is still about finding the most talented singers hiding amongst everyday ordinary Americans, or if it has simply become a stage for finding the biggest, fattest, saddest sob stories in America and then jamming them down our throats?

This over the top nauseating trend seemed to start last year with Danny Gokey. He was the borderline talented singer who's wife passed away just weeks before his Idol journey began. The Idol producers managed to parlay the "dead wife" angle into a third place finish for Gokey while his much more talented friend (Jamar Rogers) didn't even make it out of Hollywood and into the Top 36.

Now, I'm no expert on everything American Idol as I missed the first 6 seasons (I only started watching in Season 7 because I thought David Cook was cool, and I watched Season 8 because of my man-crush on Adam Lambert and my mad love for Megan Joy), but from the auditions I've seen so far, I'm struggling to find a reason to watch Season 9.

Seriously, who the hell is there to root for?? Some of the talent is ok - but it seems most were getting through to Hollywood as a result of their "hard luck" stories (surviving cancer, surviving prison, surviving the ghetto) as opposed to mad vocal skillz. Even when there wasn't really a hard luck story to be found the producers would just make one up! One young girl was still reeling from her parents divorce earlier this year (welcome to the other 50% of America darling), while another was there to escape her small town life.

*sigh*

Sadly, the best audition I've seen through the first 6 cities was General Larry Platt singing "Pants on the Ground".

The real unfortunate part is it looks like most of the really good talent didn't even get to audition for the judges. Check out this blog here and you will see tale after tale of Idol rejects who were told that they "weren't what Idol was looking for this year". And these weren't the regular retards rejects that we see during the audition process - some of these kids have some serious talent!

I suppose in hindsight they probably should have told the producers that they were gang-banging cancer survivors who's parents got divorced while they were in a small town prison. Oh well, guess they'll know better for next year.

Father of the Year

Ladies and gentlemen (I'm assuming my faithful readers are one or the other), I heard some news today that made me shake my head. Worse, when I heard the news I think I even uttered the "F" word - in front of my Mama Meanie no less!!

I warn you now, this is a very personal blog entry and I'm not attempting to be objective. Nor am I trying to be politically correct or nice - hey, the blog is called "The Screaming Meanie" not "The Screaming Nicie".

So what's the news??

The future Mrs. Meanie's ex-husband is a Father again. Yikes!!

Ok, so at first blush, this may not seem so shocking (or personal). But for those unfamiliar with the exploits of the Dumb Ass that is my future's ex, I shall enlighten you.


The Father of the Year (who shall from here on in be referred to as FOTY or dumb ass) already has 2 children that he has chosen not to see.

Yep, you read that right. For reasons unbeknownst to me (or anyone else for that matter), after leaving his wife for another woman, he just decided one day to stop seeing his children. That was 4 years ago.

How does a man live with himself after walking out on his kids?? He'll tell anyone who will listen that his "bitch ex-wife" won't let him see his kids. But I can assure you dear readers, that that's a big steaming pile of monkey crap. He has never, not once, been denied access to his children. Even if the future Mrs. Meanie wanted to, as an advocate of Father's rights, I never would have allowed it.

Spreading his bile may make him feel better when facing his friends (like the bible-thumping hypocrite or the forever expanding Italian), but I can't help but wonder what goes through his little pea brain when he's on his own. When there's no one around to lie to, does he think about his kids?? About what he's done to them?? Does he think about them on their birthday's?? And does he feel guilty for leaving them Fatherless?

Well, they're not really Fatherless. They have me. And I don't toot my own horn very often, but as far as I'm concerned, they've upgraded. They may not call me "Dad" (a conversation I'm sure the future Mrs. Meanie and I will have soon), but I am "Dad" to them in most senses of the word. And come November 7th, I'll be "Dad" in EVERY sense of the word.

As a Father myself, I can't help but wonder how a man could possibly leave his children. More specifically, why did Dumb Ass abandon his kids?? I wish I knew. All I know is that he was pissed that he didn't get his way in court and hasn't seen the kids since. Is it nothing more than the mother of all hissy fits?? It's hard to think that someone can be that childish, but I really don't have any other explanation.

So before I end this blog entry I must ask the obvious question - is his current wife the dumbest woman on earth??? Seriously, I'm not asking tongue in cheek. He's already abandoned 2 children - why in the name of the Baby Jesus would she ever want to have a child with this dork?? What makes her think that he won't abandon their daughter??

And when he's holding that little girl, does it remind him that he already has a little girl that desperately needed a Father?? Not to mention a son. But not to worry, his two kids will be loved and taken care of. They will not go Fatherless - I'll do it. And I'll do it much better than he ever could have.

Any idiot can make a baby (FOTY is living proof of that), but it takes a man to be a Father!

M.A.D.D. - Meanies Against Drunk Driving

I had a crappy morning. And why? Well, the amateur that made my morning coffee at Tim Horton's certainly didn't help - I can handle a mediocre cup of coffee from time to time, but please, for the love of all that is screaming and mean, NOT MY MORNING COFFEE!! However, that's not the reason my morning was awful.

No, it's because some genius decided to have a few (too many) drinks last night, and then thought it might be fun to lead the police on a high speed chase. The chase, which was called off for safety reasons, resulted in Mr. Brilliant-Drunk crashing his car on the Queen Street Hill, which is one of the major accesses that connects the Hamilton escarpment to the lower city. The crash resulted in the closure of this access during the morning rush hour.

Now, for those of you unfamiliar with the lovely City of Hamilton, when one access is closed, the overflow is funnelled to the other accesses (West 5th, Clairmont and Jolly Cut) which causes a nightmare inducing traffic jam.

That, is what ruined an otherwise beautiful morning. A drunk flippin' driver.

I suppose it's only fair to let you, my faithful readers know the fact that this moron was drunk was never reported in the press. However I, The Screaming Meanie (Mwuahahahahah), have my sources.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, pisses me off more than a drunk driver. And for the life of me, I don't understand why it still happens. We've all grown up with M.A.D.D. (the Mother brand, not the Meanie brand), we were raised watching a slew of Public Service Announcements, and we know what the results of drinking and driving are.

And yet it still happens. I've had two family members lose their license for drinking and driving - one was young and dumb, the other was old and dumber. They both should have known better. I've heard colleagues tell stories about how they drove home "completely wrecked" - which is usually followed up by the obligatory, "I'm not proud of it" speech (which begs the question, if you're not proud of it, why are you sharing it?). I've seen numerous pictures on Facebook of "friends" drinking (or weeding) and driving. All of it disgusts me.

I know first hand (well as first hand as you can get without being involved in an accident) the horrific results of drinking and driving. A few years ago my brother and sister were on their way home in a cab (ironically after a night of drinking), when they were t-boned by a drunkin' idiot. There injuries were not life threatening, but they were severe, and they were permanent. Police said they were lucky. Had their cab been one foot further up the road, they probably would have been killed.

One foot.

My brother and sister, who I love more than anything save my children, came within 12 inches of losing their lives.

12" inches.

All because some freakin' loser was too stoooooopid to call a cab. The only thing about this that gives me any solace is the fact that the drunk driver dickhead's injuries were severe - more severe than my brother and sister's as a matter of fact!

So whyyyyyyy, does it still happen??

The PSA's are out there. They're visible. They're consistent.

Police have apparently stepped up their RIDE programs - although I have seen no evidence of this (in the last 13 years, I have only been stopped at 2 ride programs). But they say they're there.

I believe that the penalties for drinking and driving need to be more unforgiving. The laws as they are now are a joke!

And since you've asked how I would punish drunk drivers, I'll share my brilliant ideas with you, my readers.

First offence, no matter how minor, you lose your drivers license. Forever. No second chances. No bleeding-heart-liberal-judge to give you a "you've been a bad boy" speech and then slap you on your wrist. You lose your privilege - not your right, your privilege - to drive for the rest of your life.

Of course we know this will result in people driving with a suspended license. So I have a plan for that too. If you get caught driving with a suspended license due to a DUI charge, you get an automatic 12-month prison sentence. No plea bargains. No half way house. Do not pass go. You go directly to jail! And you serve the entire 12 months.

Second offence - 36 months.

Third offence - 10 years.

If there's a fourth offence, you just don't get out again. Ever again.

Yes, I know, the punishment is severe - but what a deterrent. Do you think people might think twice about drinking and driving if their license is permanently on the line??

I'd love to know what you think. How would you dole out punishment?? Has your life been impacted by a drunk driver??

Oh, and do you remember the dumb ass that ruined my morning?? He has a punctured lung and two broken ankles - one of them shattered. I get giddy just thinking about him suffering!

Michael Vick - The Most Hated Sports Figure Ever?

This past Thursday the Philadelphia Eagles shocked the football world by signing the much maligned quarterback Michael Vick to a one year contract (with an option for a second year). The move came as a surprise for a couple of reasons:

1. The Eagles already have a couple of very good QB's in Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb.


2. Whoever picked up Vick was going to be heavily criticized for allowing this monster a spot on their NFL roster. If he had signed with the Raiders - it wouldn't have surprised me. But the Eagles?? Didn't see that coming. Especially considering point #1.

For those of you who have been living under a rock for the last little while, let me explain. In 2007 Michael Vick was sentenced to 23 months in prison for operating a dog fighting ring. He did it to make money - the millions of dollars you get for being an NFL QB doesn't go nearly as far as it used to I suppose. With money on the line, dogs that performed poorly were either electrocuted, hanged, or drowned.

Disgusted yet? Yeah, I thought you might be.

So here we are. After completing his sentence, Vick is out of prison and free to play football again (after he serves a 4 game suspension).

However the question everybody is asking is, should he be allowed to play? After all, his crime is so heinous, he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an NFL stadium right?

Well I have a better question. Why are we vilifying Michael Vick?? Seriously, why?? Actually, I don't need any smart ass comments from the peanut gallery, I know why he's being vilified. But haven't there been far worse atrocities committed by NFL players in the past? Why aren't we denigrating them? Ok, maybe that was the genius question.

In 2000, Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis was indicted for murder and aggravated assault following a fight that broke out at a Superbowl party. He later pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge of obstruction of justice in exchange for his testimony against his two accomplices. Not only did we the adoring fans welcome him back with open arms, but he made the cover of the Madden 2005 video game.

Former Tennessee Titan and Dallas Cowboy Adam 'Pacman' Jones has had a litany of run-ins with the law including a shooting at a Las Vegas strip club that left one person paralyzed from the waist down. Jones pleaded no contest to conspiracy to commit disorderly conduct - quite a bit different than the two felony charges he was facing.

In 2008 Marvin Harrison was allegedly involved in a shooting outside a bar that he owns. While ballistics have confirmed the bullets in the shooting came from a gun owned by Harrison, conflicting eye witness reports have prevented investigators from making an arrest in the case.

Denver Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall has been arrested several times over the last 5 years on a number of charges including assaulting a police officer, domestic violence, driving under the influence, and misdemeanor battery.

On March 1st of this year, Cleveland Browns wide receiver Dante Stallworth killed a pedestrian with his car while he was driving under the influence. In April he was charged with second degree manslaughter.

All of these players (with the exception of Stallworth) have come back to the NFL without nearly the controversy that has plagued Michael Vick.

I can't help but wonder why?? Is Vick's crime that much more odious than what 'Pacman' Jones or Ray Lewis or Dante Stallworth did? Is it because dogs are cute and fluffy and late night drunks are, well, not cute or fluffy??

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love dogs (have one - soon to be two myself) and think what Vick did is absolutely vile and disgusting. And I'm not saying he should be forgiven, but I guess I just don't understand why we are so willing to give some celebrities a pass - like Michael Jackson (child molestation) or Kobe Bryant (rape) - but not others. Is it really as simple as "dogs are defenseless creatures"?

I'd love to hear what you think about this topic. Feel free to leave your comments below.

Does Michael Vick deserve to play football this year?

Equality Isn't Always Equal.

Women fought a long and arduous battle for something they never should have had to fight for in the first place - Equal Rights. And with few exceptions, it's a fight they seemed to have won. Women can now do just about anything a man can do. They're police officers, doctors, lawyers, judges, astronauts, CEO's. Heck, a woman can now run to be President of the United States! Yep, as a society, it would seem we've come a long way since "the good old days".


And as a father of two girls, I'm very thankful and excited to know that the opportunities in store for my daughters are limitless!


But when it comes to equality, the one area that is grossly inequitable and still has a long way to go, is Family Law. But not for women, for men. That's right, when it comes to Family Law, it's a woman's world - men just happen to live in it.




The disparity begins immediately after conception. Once a women gets pregnant, she has all the control. If she wants to have the baby and the father doesn't - too bad. Whether he wants to have a baby or is ready to have a baby, it's her decision. Oh, and even if you - Papa - aren't interested in being a baby Daddy, sorry, you're on the hook for support.

But, if the woman doesn't want to have the baby and Dad does - too friggin' bad. Sorry about your luck bucko, there's a snowball's chance in hell that she's going to have the baby and pay YOU support. You'll have to go find some other sucker to knock up. Does this seem fair to you??


And then there is custody. Custody in our society is horribly unfair. 90% of single Fathers have less than full custody of their children. Why? Are we not interested in being Dad's?? Nope, that's not it. It's because a judge (who I'm sure has a degree in child psychology and perhaps even ECE) decides what's in the "best interest" of the children. And due to archaic thinking, it's pretty much a God given right that Mom gets custody. But how can a judge decide what's in a child's best interest without ever meeting or spending time with Mom or Dad or the children who's lives he or she is about to rule on??


*sigh*

Sadly, as it is with Criminal Defence, the "best interest" of the children really boils down to how good your lawyer is.


And once your ex-wife has custody, you become nothing more than a glorified babysitter. When I was married, I never had to ask permission to take my kids to the park. But, if I were to just take my kids to the park now (without permission from her Royal WOPness) I could be charged with kidnapping!

My ex acts as if she's doing me a favour by allowing me to see OUR kids. Like they belong to her but I'm permitted to borrow them from time to time. Oh right, according to the judge, they do belong to her. It was in their best interest. Even though he's never met me. Or her. Or our kids.

Of course then there's the most contentious issue of all - Support.


In my humble opinion (and please remember, on MY blog, MY opinion is GOSPEL), support is a joke.


How much does a loaf of bread cost? Around $2.49? Sure. Does the price of a loaf of bread go up based on your income?? Nope. So why does the cost of raising a child go up based on your income?? For those of you not bright enough to follow my train of thought - why the hell does support go up when your income goes up??


The popular answer is, if Mom and Dad had stayed together then the children would have benefited from the raise in income. Well, a) I didn't stay with my wife, b) who says they don't benefit now, and c) this is really the dumbest argument I have ever heard! Seriously, why don't I benefit when my ex-wife's income goes up??


Sadly, much to the dismay of my avaricious ex-bride, my income has stayed relatively the same over the last 4 years. Sorry honey.


You want further examples of the unfair system men are subjected to?? Support is enforced while access isn't.


A man can have his wages garnished, or worse, have his drivers license suspended for not paying support. Now, I firmly believe that a Father should support his offspring, but seriously, who was the genius that decided that taking a man's drivers license away was a good way to enforce support??


And what recourse does Dad have if Mom doesn't want to honour the access agreement?? It happens all the time. And Mom can make up any excuse she wants not to send them - little Tommy has a sniffle, little Jane has a dance recital, little Stevie has dirt under his fingernail. The explanation for denied visitation can be legit or bogus, it doesn't matter, SHE has control and there is no way to enforce access.


And just to rub salt into the wounds, if Dad misses a payment or two, it doesn't matter - pay now or pay later, even if the court needs to garnishee your wages, YOU WILL PAY. However, if Mom denies access once, twice, or continually, well, sorry buddy - even if you go back to court, there's no such thing as arrears for visitation. A visit missed is a visit lost - forever!


The whole Family Law system is so biased against men it's disgusting. It's based on a stereotype that women make better parents than men. Am I bitter?? You bet I'm bitter. If the shoe were on the other foot, you would be too. Imagine if the custody of your drivers license was decided based on the stereotype that men drive better than women. Based on the ruling of a judge who has never ridden in a car with you, your ex-spouse now controls when you can drive, and when you can't.

Equality?? Pfft! We've got such a long way to go and it seems as if no one is interested in doing anything about it.

*sigh*


Feel free to leave a comment as I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject.


Meantime, here are some stats for you to chew on.


90% of fathers have less than full custody of their children.


37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)


"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)


"Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s continued contact with his children...." (Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125)


Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated 16%.(Source: EDK Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36)


"The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with their children, James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)



"A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with their children." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.)


"Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their fathers, after divorce." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)


"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage father's efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July `93.)


"Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their marital or post-marital relationship." (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)


In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept. 1992


Information from multiple sources shows that only 10% of all noncustodial fathers fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173).


Additionally, of those not paying support, 66% are not doing so because they lack the financial resources to pay (Source: GAO report: GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).


The Poverty Studies Institute at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, discovered in 1993 that 52% of fathers who owe child support earn less than $6,155 per year.


66% of single mothers work less than full time while only 10% of fathers fall into this category. In addition, almost 47% of non-custodial mothers default on support compared with the 27% of fathers who default. (Source: Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, 1991).

Abomination of Obama-Nation?

Today I watched a dream become reality. Today I watched along with the rest of the world as Barack Obama become the first black President of the United States of America.

I don't think it's overstating anything to say that President Obama truly should be considered an inspiration to all of us. And not because of the colour of his skin, but rather his ideology. Here is a man that is preaching change and I for one think he just might do it! I'm not trying to downplay his accomplishment as a black man in any way shape or form, heck he's the Jackie Robinson of politics!

But I do think the American people need to pat themselves on the back as well. They were able to rise above their history, and look past the colour of a man's skin and choose the individual they believe will lead them with honesty and integrity.

But it doesn't matter what America does, there will always be dissidents who want to see her suffer. And I'm not talking about Islamic Fundamentalists living in the Middle East. I'm talking about Canadians. Regular Joe Canada.

As I was listening to call in shows on the radio today, and reading message boards, I was shocked and disgusted by some of the comments! While most seemed to be very complimentary of the new American President, the same cannot be said for their opinion of the people who elected him.

Canadians, my countrymen were referring to Americans as "rednecks", "idiots", and "morons". I'm not sure why some Canadians seem to have such a disregard for our brothers to the south. Is it jealousy? Insecurity?? I don't know the answer, but when did it become fashionable to bash America??

They're our neighbours, our allies, and our closest friends. I have two sisters who were born and raised in the U.S. so for me, America is family.

And today, as America celebrates, I was reminded of the famous radio address given by Gordon Sinclair way back in 1973 entitled, "The Americans". His speech is just as relevant today as it was 36 years ago and I felt compelled to include it here in my blog. Enjoy.

THE AMERICANS - Gordon Sinclair

The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the world.

As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Well, Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did, that's who.

They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Mississippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. And I was there. I saw that.

When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.

The Marshall Plan... the Truman Policy... all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. And now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.

I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.

Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or a woman on the moon?

You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times ... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are right here on our streets in Toronto, most of them... unless they are breaking Canadian laws... are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.

When the Americans get out of this bind... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the bonds, let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both of them are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.

Can you name to me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their noses at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.

I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians. And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke.

This year's disasters... with the year less than half-over... has taken it all and nobody... but nobody... has helped.

Mark Mcgwire - Foiled Again!

Last week Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice were elected for induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Being elected to Cooperstown is the highest accolade you can bestow upon a ball player and Henderson, who is widely considered the greatest lead off hitter in the history of the game, was voted in to the Hall in his first year of eligibility. Ironically Rice was voted in in his last year of eligibility! Henderson, absolutely deserves to be there. Rice? He's borderline, but I think he deserves the honour.

But what about Mark Mcgwire? Is he not equally deserving? His 583 homeruns is good for 8th on the all time list, and with the exception of Barry Bonds, the only players ahead of him are either still active or in the Hall already! As for the rest of his numbers, some are good, some are ok, some of them are great! However numbers only tell part of the story and I think when a sports writer is considering a player for induction into the Hall, he or she has to look a little deeper and see the complete picture.

After receiving only 128 votes in each of his first two years of eligibility (for a total of approximately 23% of the vote where 75% is needed for induction), Mcgwire saw that number fall to 118 votes this year. With numbers that low, unless there is a fundamental shift in the way players are elected, or it is found that Mcgwire was not in fact using performance enhancing drugs, I doubt Mcgwire will ever get into the Hall. As far as I'm concerned, it is an absolute travesty that he isn't already in Cooperstown.

In 1994, the owners did the unthinkable and cancelled the World Series! It was unprecedented. Not even World Wars I or II had managed to shut down baseball's postseason. When Major League Baseball resumed in 1995, baseball fans were bitter. And they displayed that bitterness by staying away from the game. They weren't filling the stadiums, and they weren't watching on TV. MLB was floundering.

Enter Mark Mcgwire & Sammy Sosa!

In 1998 Big Mac and Slammin' Sammy were chasing Roger Maris' homerun record which had stood for 37 years! It is arguably the most prestigious record in all of sports, and for one magical summer, these two extraordinary men captured the hearts of a nation as they chased down that elusive record set at 61! Mcgwire and Sosa pushed each other all season long, so it seemed somewhat appropriate that the Cardinals were playing the Cubs when Big Mac smacked number 62 over the left field wall at Busch Stadium in St. Louis.

It's been said that Rickey Henderson was elected to the Hall as much for his stolen base records as anything else. If this is true, are Mcgwire's 70 homers in 98' not more important than Henderson's 130 stolen bases in 1982? That summer, Mcgwire and Sosa single handedly revived baseball! As far as I'm concerned, that should count for something, and should be recognized.

So just why won't Big Mac get into Cooperstown. Depending on which sportswriter you ask, you'll get a different answer.The most common and obvious answer is performance enhancing drugs. However, regardless of what you, me or any sportswriter might think, Mcgwire has never admitted to using any performance enhancing drugs. I thought in the United States citizens were "innocent until proven guilty"? That being said, even if he did use an illegal substance, baseball had no drug policy in place when Big Mac was playing and therefore it shouldn't be held against him anyway.

The second argument you'll hear is that he is a one dimensional player and his numbers just aren't good enough for the Hall. Are you kidding me? Of all the hitters inducted into the Hall since 2003, only Wade Boggs and Rickey Henderson have a higher career on base percentage than Mcgwire. And that includes players like Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, Ryne Sandberg, Paul Molitor, Gary Carter, Eddie Murray and Jim Rice.

But let's address the issue of numbers and compare Rice who got in, to Mcgwire who didn't.

Rice clearly leads in batting average (.298 vs .263), hits (2452 vs. 1626) and triples (79 vs. 6). They have very similar totals for runs, RBI's and extra base hits (1249/1451/834 for Rice vs. 1167/1414/841 for Mcgwire). Mcgwire however dominates in slugging percentage (.588 vs .502), on base percentage (.394 vs. 352), walks (1317 vs 670), and of course Home Runs (583 vs 382).

Mcgwire was a 12 time all-star (Rice made the team 8 times), was a 3 time Silver Slugger (Rice won the honour twice), won a gold glove (which Rice was never able to do), and perhaps most importantly won a World Series in 1989. Rice was never able to accomplish this goal. Mcgwire also has the lowest Homerun per at bat ratio (10.61) in MLB History!!

The numbers speak for themselves. If they warrant induction for Rice, then Mcgwire deserves to be in too. However, after receiving only 128 votes in each of his first two years of eligibility (for a total of approximately 23% of the vote where 75% is needed for induction), and 118 votes this year, it is unlikely that he will ever get into the Hall.

Personally, I think there has to be a fundamental change in the way players, coaches and managers are elected to the Hall. Giving the sportswriters all the power to decide who gets in is inexplicable to me. I do think they should have a vote, but so should former players and managers, and even the fans. Whatever the answer is, there has to be a better system than the one that's in place - it's incomprehensible to me that Mcgwire can be kept out of the Hall given his contributions to the game. Any writer that left him off the ballot should be ashamed of themselves.