Who's using the most resources, and it's not humans

I read an article in today's s Spectator all about pets using up more resources and suggesting that your pets are "environmental disasters".
Check it out here: http://www.thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/660962

According to a book called Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, feeding large pets have more of an environmental impact than driving an SUV for 10,000 km.

So, basically, theses authors are suggesting giving away your pets so you can help the earth. According to the research that Robert and Brenda Vale( New-Zealand researchers) conducted your dog requires 0.84 global hectares (gha) to sustain him for a year. Larger dogs require as much as 1.1 gha a year versus an SUV which only requires as much as 0.41 gha a year.

Honestly, I don't see how getting rid of dogs is going to help improve the environment. We've done so much damage to the earth over the years, we depleted the Ozone layer years ago by using pesticides and cleaning products- I doubt that the damage is reversible.

Dogs don't really add to the "environmental disaster" that these researchers are referring to. We create the products so maybe it's time for us to take the responsibility and do something to make these products more environmentally friendly. I think we should try all our other options at saving the planet before getting rid of beloved family pets in order to make ourselves feel better about our environmental contribution.

Cozy Graffiti?

Yarn Bombing? Yes, I said Yarn bombing. I read this article today and I found it to be very intriguing. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/712784--graffiti-gangs-chant-knit-one-purl-two

Yarn bombing is a new type of graffiti. People from all over the world are tagging all sorts of objects with coloured knits such as a part of the Great Wall of China, telephone poles, buses and anything else they can tie knits onto.

We're against graffiti but the Yarn Bombers say that it's just meant to beautify their neighbourhoods or to promote the art form since it's not that well known. Others think it's going against "consumerism" and because it doesn't damage property it's just seen as an interesting version of art.

I find this to be interesting since no one can really say anything against this form of expression because it isn't damaging and they're taking an interest in their community and that is a good thing.

If all they want to do is express their art and beautify their communities than let them continue their work and it will better the community too.

Publication Ban Breach?

Okay, so coming from a Journalistic background, I know all about Publication Bans. These usually seem to be placed while a trial is ongoing or the case involves a child under the age of 18.

I happened upon this article: http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/650463
this morning in the Spectator about the paper breaching a publication ban regarding the Johnson- Aziga HIV- murder trial. I was shocked for two reasons: one being that the Spectator is covering their own story and two that they would breach a ban placed by a Superior Court judge.


It makes me wonder about the integrity of journalism since it's rather odd to hear of bans being breached. The ban was put in place for a reason, to protect the identities of the victims. The women died of AIDS and having their names and faces out there would only had to the trauma cause by this situation to their families.

The Spectator has been charged for breaching the ban connected with a published photo in April.

According to the editor-in chief, David Estok, they would never intentionally publish something that was banned. They felt at the time that, the photo met the requirements and didn't reveal any identities.

This should be interesting to see how it plays out and how it affects the media as a whole. It could affect publication banning and make the law even more strict when coming to trials and the media.

David Letterman's latest incident

Okay, so by now everyone knows about David Letterman’s latest incident. I honestly don’t feel that it matter whether or not he was forced into admitting to his affairs. Regardless, he came clean and he apologized to both his wife and the women he worked with.
Now, I’m not condoning cheating on anyone because I don’t believe it’s fair or morally right but when you’re in the type of industry it’s kind of understandable why it might happen. Look at it this way, if you’re never home always on the road- your relationship is bound to suffer whether you’re married or just dating. The lack of communication and attention being paid to your significant other is bound to take a toll and eventually affect the intimacy you share. In saying that, it’s only human nature to seek comfort where you can find it.
Many people in prominent positions have done this- so why is so much attention being paid to this particular incident? Well, obviously the blackmail aspect definitely adds to the appeal. No matter what, Letterman admitted to being in the wrong- came clean and apologized, I think it’s time to move on and let it go.