U.S. Asks Canada to Send Basic Medical Supplies
I see the U.S. has asked Canada to help out with the Hurricane Katrina disaster by sending "basic medical supplies"--blankets, batteries, surgical dressings and tongue depressors. Obviously, these guys know our socialized medical system pretty well. They figured this was all we had to send.
Monday, September 05, 2005
Women and Children First
In today’s Globe and Mail (September 5, 2005), writer Gary Mason quotes an observer of the hurricane Katrina chaos: “You know all that women and children first stuff? There was none of that, I can tell you. It was like nothing I’d ever seen. You had guys grabbing little babies figuring that was their ticket on to the bus.”
The interesting part is that the guys who grabbed the little babies knew perfectly well what other people’s ethical strictures are. They knew that other people believe in saving children first. So let’s never hear the excuse that these people are just poor, uneducated unfortunates who don’t know any better. They know better. They simply choose to act like savages.
In today’s Globe and Mail (September 5, 2005), writer Gary Mason quotes an observer of the hurricane Katrina chaos: “You know all that women and children first stuff? There was none of that, I can tell you. It was like nothing I’d ever seen. You had guys grabbing little babies figuring that was their ticket on to the bus.”
The interesting part is that the guys who grabbed the little babies knew perfectly well what other people’s ethical strictures are. They knew that other people believe in saving children first. So let’s never hear the excuse that these people are just poor, uneducated unfortunates who don’t know any better. They know better. They simply choose to act like savages.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Hate These Botch-Ups
The so-called "Johnathan" trial has ended in a mistrial. What I want to know is, why did it take a reporter from the National Post to log on to the internet and find out what the teenaged female witness had been blogging about? Why didn't the defence lawyers do this themselves, or have their staff members do this? Apparently the girl's web nickname was the subject of considerable testimony in court, so anyone could have found what the NP reporter found. If the defence lawyers had been doing their job, the girl could have been confronted with her blogs while she was still being cross-examined and we taxpayers would not now be facing the expense of another trial.
The so-called "Johnathan" trial has ended in a mistrial. What I want to know is, why did it take a reporter from the National Post to log on to the internet and find out what the teenaged female witness had been blogging about? Why didn't the defence lawyers do this themselves, or have their staff members do this? Apparently the girl's web nickname was the subject of considerable testimony in court, so anyone could have found what the NP reporter found. If the defence lawyers had been doing their job, the girl could have been confronted with her blogs while she was still being cross-examined and we taxpayers would not now be facing the expense of another trial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)