Category Archives: News and politics

The media pumps are whirring overtime, running hot with steamy stories about Kate Middleton’s topless pictures.  The Duchess of Cambridge has been the subject of much lens-time since she became betrothed, then wed to the Duke of Cambridge, or Will Wales as he’s also know as to his military chums.  So what’s the big deal?

First, let us address Kate’s goods.  Not uncommonly among female humans, she has breasts.  Two of them to be precise about it.

Instead of rolling the muck, we’ll attempt to keep some kind of high tone to the proceedings.  We will use naval architectural terms instead.  Kate’s are in the corvette class, like the HMCS Frederiction (K245).  By contrast, Pamela Anderson another well know celebrity, who has willingly published photos of her breasts, would be described as something in the battleship, HMS Warspite (03) class.  

Second, Kate and William were in France on a private vacation and as celebrities, had ensconced themselves far enough away from prying eyes that there was a reasonable assurance of some kind of privacy from the ever-present photographers.  With that reasonable assurance of privacy, she chose to sunbathe topless.  This is a not uncommon choice for anyone to make on a hot sunny day, on vacation in France, but being a celebrity and constant target of photographers, she ensured that there was an overabundance of assurance that there would be no prying lenses about. 

Unfortunately, someone with a very long lens, almost a telescope, did manage to grab some shots of Kate’s goods.  Said pictures have been published, most pixelated to obscure the pigmented area of the areola, but a few have been unretouched.  To use the words of a pathologist, they are unremarkable. 

Which brings us to the essential question:  Who cares?  It would seem that too many people ‘care’ if that is the term, being coy about publishing, or not publishing, suing, or not suing, banning or not banning the photos. 

The analogy, addressed to our female readers would be this:  If your neighbour across the street were to set up a telescope, or a long lens camera to take photos of your morning ablutions or simply dressing before work, would you call the cops?  The answer is almost certainly, “Hell yeah! Slap that perv in the clink!” as it should be. 

Now, scale back your ability to respond by about half.  As a ‘celebrity’ you know you have a retinue of photographers who attend your every motion outside of the bedchamber, furiously fanning the shutter to get that one shot of you with a piece of carrot stuck in your teeth, or perhaps a glimpse of undergarment while getting out of a car. 

You are swarmed by them daily and in exchange for your ‘celebrity’ you give up even the slightest vestige of assumption of privacy.  Except you are also a human, who does get a piece of carrot stuck in her teeth, needs to adjust their clothing, or even simply stop somewhere appropriate to attend to normal bodily functions.  The photographers don’t give you that latitude.

The savage in me would love to see Kate find a way to stalk that particular photographer who got the topless shots and return the favour:  Publishing blurry, grainy shots of him (or her) picking their nose, coming out of the bathroom, or trying to shoehorn their mouth around an oversize sandwich.  The headlines of “Kate Hits Back at Furtive Foto Fondler” over a blurry snap of the photographer adjusting his package after coming out of a pub would be sweet revenge.  However, that isn’t going to happen, even with the resources she could bring to bear as part of the Royal Family.  They don’t play that way and won’t play that way. 

The more tantalizing response would be for her to announce that, yes, those are my breasts, that’s exactly what they look like.  Even have the photos enlarged and on the stage, if you want to truly press home the point. 

Then the twist: We’re suing the photographer for violating her privacy, to the tune of several million pounds. 

As soon as the case is decided, most likely in her favour, she will then donate the proceeds to Breast Cancer Research in the UK.

A sensible combination of complete disclosure that makes the photos essentially worthless and at the same time giving the media a beating with their own stupid fixations, wrapped in a fine covering of charitable awareness-raising for Breast Cancer research. 

Win-Win.   

Post-Colorado and post-Toronto shootups, there is increasing talk of gun control on both side of the border.  We’ll define our terms here, as this is the best way to limit knee-jerk reaction to the whole issue, which understandably, many people take too seriously.  We will also provide translation where needed, as we recognize that some people are familiar with firearms and some are not. 

First off, it isn’t a gun.  A gun is defined as a projectile weapon using a hollow tubular barrel with a closed end as the means of directing a projectile.  This could be anything from a 16-inch gun on a battleship that sends shells the size of your sofa towards a target forty miles away, to a marshmallow gun that shoots Kraft Miniatures at a square of chocolate and two graham crackers using air pressure.  They’re all guns. 

We’re talking about, specifically, firearm weapons.  True, knives, swords, crossbows and clubs are also weapons.  A stapler can be a “weapon” as it all depends on intent, which we will get to shortly. 

A “rifle” refers to the spiral grooves, the rifling, machined inside the barrel of a firearm to make the bullet spin and be more accurate over distance.  A “shotgun” refers to the type of projectile, several dozen little steel or lead balls, called shot, in a largish shell, about the size of a lipstick, for those of our audience who use makeup on a regular basis. 

A handgun or pistol is a common term that describes the size of the weapon, generally meaning small enough to hold and use with one hand.  A shotgun a handgun and a rifle are all firearm weapons, meaning they use gunpowder to propel some kind of hard projectile at high speed towards something else.  

We will define further demarcations between long firearm weapons and short firearm weapons. 

Hunting firearms are almost all, by definition, long weapons, meaning more than 18 inches long and rarely with a clip of more than 8 rounds. 

We’ve got no problem with hunting, be it ducks, moose or even sporting clays, but frankly, sporting clays taste horrible, even if you cook them for a week.  Pass a firearms safety course, keep them in a firearms safe at home and transport them properly.  Feel free to break bottles, control varmints or target shoot to your wallet and heart’s content.  All we ask is that if you do take an animal or four that you use as much of the animal as you can, be it deer, elk, bear or ducks.  How many and in what season is up to the provincial or state hunting regulations.  

The only limitation we would ever consider imposing is to limit the weapon to semi-auto and to eight rounds.  For the non-firearms folks semi-auto means you have to pull the trigger each time you want to fire the weapon and you have to reload after eight shots.  Reloading takes a couple of seconds with a well-skilled person using the weapon.

Where the problem exists is firearm weapons that are less than 18 inches long and that great mystery of intent. 

We don’t have a problem with people who target shoot using handguns, which are by definition less than 18 inches long.  One of our acquaintances is Linda Thom.  She knows how to use a weapon correctly, safely and with exceptional precision, as evidenced by her 1984 Olympic Gold Medal in 25 metre sport pistol competition.  If you want to shoot targets with a firearm weapon less than 18 inches long, the same rules for long firearm weapons would apply:  Firearms safety course, weapons safe at home, proper transportation, limit to semi-auto and eight rounds.  The only addition would be a very stringent police background check and here’s why: 

Firearm weapons shorter than 18 inches can be easily concealed.

A concealed firearm weapon has a different potential intent than one that is very difficult to conceal, like a long firearm weapon.  Yes, you can still pull a Model 870 out from under your coat and fire away at things and people, but it’s a lot harder to conceal than a M1911 short firearm weapon.  Both firearms can be used for benign purposes, be it hunting, or target shooting, but both can also be used to kill people.  This speaks to intent and the intent to conceal means you have the potential for less than socially acceptable ends in mind when you pull out a short firearm. 

Since we can’t actually determine intent up front when someone goes to buy a firearm  (Gosh, I don’t want to hurt ducks, I want to shoot several co-workers and then die in a hail of bullets from the ERT – is rarely written on a Firearms Acquisition Certificate as the reason they want to obtain a weapon) we have to make it difficult for less than lawful and socially acceptable uses of firearm weapons. 

Concealment is the first step:  Make it hard to conceal the weapon by making it illegal for the firearm weapon, except for very specific circumstances, to be less than 18 inches long.

Second step is a limit of semi-auto and eight rounds.  Hunters and target shooters don’t need to be able to fire a clip in one pull.  If you’re that unskilled that you need full auto and a 50 round clip to take a deer, we’re not sure you should be allowed to have a camera, let alone a firearm.  Make it illegal for the firearm weapon to fire full auto and to have a capacity of no more than 8 rounds per magazine or clip.

Third step:  The display or involvement of any firearm weapon in the commission of any crime results in the automatic doubling of the penalty.  Discharge of a firearm weapon in the commission of any crime results in a second doubling of the penalty.  We call it the Double-Double Rule, named after the Tim Horton’s Coffee typical order of a Double-Double, of two cream and two sugar. 

Here’s the elegance of the Double-Double:  It speaks to the intent of the use of the firearm weapon.  It has nothing to do with the legal, acceptable use of firearm weapons, aside from some sensible limits (semi-auto, no more than 8 rounds) their safe use, transportation and storage.  These laws are already on the books, or could be amended very easily.  Double-Double has everything to do with the commission of illegal acts involving firearm weapons.

So let’s take the Toronto shootings:  Illegal possession of a firearm weapon of less than 18 inches in length.  Seven and a half years is one of the more recent sentences.  Double it, is 15.  Discharge of the weapon with intent to harm another person, double it again:  30 years.  We’ll let you in on a little feature of Double-Double.  No parole or time off for good behaviour:  You serve the full 30 year sentence under Double-Double even if it is your first offence.

Perhaps the beauty of the whole arrangement is we don’t have to argue about ‘banning guns’ a gun registry, stolen and illegal handguns, or even debate the merits of target shooting and hunting by sensible, safe, firearm weapons owners.  Double-Double gets to heart of the matter, the intent of the firearm weapon holder, without changing our current situation very much.

Could a Double-Double law have prevented the Colorado shooter James Holmes or the Norwegian nutcase Anders Brevik?  Not really, except that the shooters would have less likely access to short firearm weapons, either legally, or illegally and know the penalty for being taken alive would be a very, very long time in prison.  We can’t control the crazy, no matter how hard we try to legislate things:  There will always be those who find a way to act on the voices in their head.

But we can make it very, very punitive for gang-bangers and their ilk to cross that line of intent.  A few of them being put away for 30 years tends to send the message in a clear, concise and easily understood manner:  Do not use a firearm weapon in the commission of an illegal act – You will go to jail for a long, long time.

Where’s the upside of Double-Double, you ask?  For one, it keeps our politicians from behaving in knee-jerk fashion nattering on about ‘gun’ control to gather votes.  One Toronto mayor wanted to make target shooting ranges illegal to stem the flow of stolen handguns from the US.  That’s almost as dumb as clear cutting forests because forests have trees, that are made of wood, than can be made into a baseball bats that can be used to hit other people over the head. 

The second upside is that we make it difficult enough already to legally have a firearm weapon less than 18 inches in length.  If you are that keen to take up target shooting and the pistol arts, then you won’t mind waiting 30 days or more for the background check to be completed while you take your firearms safety course and get your firearms safe installed.  No problem, as your intent is socially acceptable and the laws are already on the books.  Do recognize that we will put your ass in a sling if we find you’re storing your firearms in a dresser drawer with two full mags and the safety off.  That’s stupid beyond belief and has nothing to do with target shooting.

Third, we’re not limiting long firearm weapons, aside from the aforementioned semi-auto and eight round limits.  Hunt, shoot clays, control varmints or plink bottles all day if you want to, as long as you do it safely.  If we find you piss drunk shooting a stop sign by the side of the highway, be assured the cops will confiscate your weapon and should probably give you two black eyes with the butt of your shotgun for being a complete idiot out of season.

Fourth, we get rid of those who choose to wave a gun around, either as thieves, robbers or gang-bangers by putting them away for a very long time.  It might take a few years for the message to be delivered, but at least the perpetrators will be off the street.  It took about ten years to get the message regarding seat belts or driving drunk to become mainstream, so it isn’t an instant fix. Nothing is.

As for the crazies like James Holmes?  That we cannot fix.