Man! Did the media blow it or what? Gore won, then it became too close to call, then Bush was declared the winner, then it returned to "no winner yet". Why did such a farce happen? Blame it on the media's race to be the first to declare the result. Most of the time, the media announces the result of an election when only 25?0% of the votes are actually counted. The media calls the method "an accurate projection", but any projection isn't accurate until 100% of the results are confirmed. In such a close race, we would probably need to count every vote before reaching any conclusions.
We are living in the year 2000, but the U.S. still uses punch cards (you heard it right) for election purposes, and the "double punched cards", or, as most people call it, the "my vote is for Gore, not for that Buchanan guy" controversy, has forced the use of the most primitive way to count votes — by HAND — in some counties of Florida. This would never happen if the U.S. used something that students around the world have used for a long time: multiple-choice forms.
The Bush camp is doing everything to stop the legal challenges from the Gore regiment in Florida, yet the Bush campaign launches court challenges themselves in the states that Gore won. If this isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is. In recent developments, Bush has acted as if he had already won the election. The last time I checked, almost doesn't imply definite. George, you really jumped the gun here. Why don't you refrain from doing all these "transition" tasks until you actually win? Because you still can LOSE.
Here I'm not talking about the war of words between the political parties that appears on TV every day. What I mean is the ad war between Rogers and its competitors. If any of you are subscribers to Rogers Cable TV, you will know what I'm talking about. In those ads, people dump the satellite dishes into trash cans and recycling boxes. Dishes went unsold at the yard sale, and, my favourite, are used as a real dish at lunch. The ad says that their offering of digital TV is way better than satellite TV and that cable will never be affected by outside conditions. The truth is that there ARE times where the TV screen shows nothing but static or a black screen, even when the TV is ON, for someone who has cable. Both sides (cable and satellite) stress that their rate is lower (for the same channels). They are both right (and wrong): some packages from satellite TV do cost less than cable but some other packages are more expensive (depending on what the choices of packages are). For most people, me included, the cost of having something on TV other than a blank screen is too high. Some channels cost about $20 per month; that's outrageous.
In the fight to get people to use their internet service, the competitors' ads can be downright nutty. Bell claims that someone becomes so frustrated with the slowness that comes with sharing the cable with others that they buy the whole neighbourhood. When I see the ad, one question quickly surfaces — how did that man come up with the money to buy the neighbourhood? In various Rogers@Home ads, people are portrayed as being paralysed and are said to be suffering "download rigor mortis", the condition that occurs when downloading files that require a large amount of memory. The ad never mentions any means of prevention, other than to subscribe to the @Home service. People, you don't have to stare at the monitor when you are downloading files. If the file takes a long time to be downloaded, get off the chair and do something else. On the positive side, at least these ads are better than those annoying "cable fast, phone slow" ones.
If there is one thing that we shouldn't learn from the Canadian political party leaders, it would have to be their countless interruptions during conversations. Whenever someone else opens the mouth, they try to cut that person off. Man, even elementary students know not to speak when someone else is speaking. Is it any wonder that Canadian politicians get no respect?
Jason "the Screamer" Lau