From this past weekend.

http://sdksupplies.netfirms.com/001blogpics/080519mayseminar/index.html

From Today's Merc

http://news.guelphmercury.com/News/article/330088


Iaido seminar celebrates lesser-known martial art


May 20, 2008 Jessica SmithMercury Staff
GUELPH
One of Canada's premier seminars for Iaido -- the martial art dedicated to drawing a sword -- took place at the University of Guelph this weekend.

"The idea is, you have the sword in the sheath in your belt and you have to draw and cut in one smooth motion to defend yourself," said David Green, an administrator for the event who has been practicing Iaido for more than 20 years.

"After that, we follow up with a few finishing cuts to finish people off," he added.

There is no actual contact in Iaido. The kata -- routines -- are practised with a sword and sometimes with a partner, but the foes are imaginary.

"We have katas that have one, two, three, four different attackers coming from different directions," Green said.

While Iaido requires some leg and arm-strength, it is not physically demanding, he said.
Nor is it very useful for self-defence.

"It's not a martial art like karate where you can imagine you're going to get in a bar fight and use it, because you never have a sword," Green said.

"So people study it for the personal development reasons."

The goal of Iaido is to have spirit, sword, body all as one, he said.

"A lot of samurai have said they've achieved enlightenment through the training of the sword arts -- so that's what a lot of people seek through it."

There is an Iaido competition in Canada once every three years, but in general Iaido is not competitive.

Since there is no fighting or combat, only the kata are judged. Competitors are evaluated in a similar way to figure skaters, Green said.

The seminar at the U of G began in 1991 when organizer Kim Taylor arranged to bring a high-level Iaido teacher, Matsuo Haruna Sensei, to Guelph from Japan.

Now, there are more than 140 participants and six or seven high-level teachers, Green said.
Participants this year came from as far away as British Columbia and the U.S.

Compared to other martial arts, Iaido has a small following and few gyms in Canada, but Green said that can be an asset.

"It's a small enough community that we all kind of know each other, and it's a trustworthy group."

If you're in Guelph this weekend....

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~iaido/iai.seminar.html

Double standards a personol peeve

By Ken Morgan, Captain's Quarters
May 06, 2008


About a year ago I wrote my opinion regarding the quarrel over NestlÈ taking water from the Aberfoyle springs. My main point was how people were crucifying the bottled water industry but no one said anything about the makers of beer, pop or the water used by golf courses, which all use substantially more water then the bottled water people.

My concern was about the double standard, how people and politicians split hairs and see the proverbial tree but not the forest. Develop a water strategy, applying the law equally across the board. It amazes me how much of that same inconsistency exists in our laws, our regulations and our guidelines.

In the City of Guelph, as in most municipalities, you must, by law, purchase a licence for your dog, but not for your cat. The price varies, of course, depending on wether or not your dog is spayed or neutered and/or if it has a microchip. Why is a licence required for a dog but not a cat? Years ago when dog licensing came into effect, people allowed their dogs to roam. These days, cats certainly roam more then dogs. I can't remember the last time I saw a dog running around without its owner, but I see cats on a daily basis. Cats inflict as much damage to property and wildlife as dogs. You can't fairly apply a double standard, but then again, what a great way to generate tax revenue.

Over the past couple of decades people have begun to make their own beer and wine at home and in little shops scattered throughout the city. Gone are the days of our neighbours utilizing an old wooden press in the garage, with which to make the grape juice which will become the home-made vino. The number of local retail outlets speaks of the success of the current industry. So why is it that as citizens we are allowed to dabble in wine and beer production, but it is still illegal to make spirits? What is the difference?

With the current price of gasoline, one would think the government would at least encourage the production of ethanol simply as a fuel source. I think the whole argument comes down to the fact that the government can't tax home- made spirit production. Wine and beer supplies can be taxed. How do you put an extra tax on corn and grains?

One of my favorite double standards is the ban on the use of cellphones in the car in some provinces and states. I'm guilty of using my phone in the car, as are most people I know. Before such a law is brought into effect in Ontario, probably due to some knee-jerk reaction to some future tragedy, I'd like to ask: Why just ban cellphones? What about the people who eat or drink while driving? What about those people that put on make-up while driving? What about those little television sets in the front seat, or a GPS unit? All of these things distract the driver's attention from driving; how can we justify banning one distraction, but not the others?

Why do we have a charge of murder and attempted murder? Should there not be just one charge? Just because our medical system saves someone's life should not justify a reduced charge against the offender. In my eyes the offence of murder and attempted murder are the same thing. In armed robbery, whether or not you get caught in the bank or caught weeks later, you're still charged with armed robbery.

There are many reasons for double standards in our society. Some are old laws; like old houses that have had multiple renovations over the years, at the end you don't recognize what the original intent was. The most common reason is obviously the tax grab, tonnes of money can be made by taxing a minority concern, as no one in the majority will complain. The inconsistency of our laws is both frustrating and discouraging, but until there is a massive cry for reform, nothing will change.

Livable jobs key, not livable wages

By Ken Morgan, Captain's Quarters
Column
Apr 22, 2008


There has emerged over the past decade a strange change in attitude towards paid employment. At one time people advanced through low paying, entry level positions, and through extra education, seniority and hard work moved up into higher pay, more responsible positions. While this still occurs, I'm finding more and more people wanting high paying jobs now, regardless of their experience, their education or their skill level and then being frustrated when employers aren't throwing money and responsibility at their feet. Entitlement is taken for granted.

The people and organizations demanding a more livable minimum wage, no matter how commendable it may seem, are delusional if they think that a minimum wage of $10, $15, or even $20 an hour will make any real difference to the people they want to help. The price of corresponding goods and services will rise accordingly.

It is a politicized issue, whereby those advocating a higher minimum wage will only help themselves in the polls and voting booths. After all, who could not vote for a politician holding such a carrot?

Coincidently, the rise in minimum wage a few weeks ago corresponded exactly with a rise in pricing at both Tim Hortons and at McDonald's here in Guelph. I ordered items at both places recently and was surprised when the price I was paying was higher then it was before the minimum wage increase. I usually don't believe in coincidence, so draw your own conclusions.

Companies of all sizes need to make money. Period. They are not in the business of charity, handing out wages for philanthropic reasons. That's a fantasy that died a harsh, brutal death in the demise of the Soviet Union, yet for some reason still has some conviction within the local NDP party. Some people will still hock their grandmother's snake oil recipe brought from the old country, even though the old lady now knows better and buys her prescriptions from a pharmacy.

Businesses exist to make money for the shareholders. Most companies have a minimum percentage of profit they will accept. Once that decreases, expenses are cut and prices rise so as to return to an acceptable profit. Any rise in expenses, including minimum wage, will result in a corresponding rise in the pricing of goods and services, or a cut in expenses, including jobs. The minimum wage must routinely rise, simply to cover the rise in general inflation. However, minimum wage will never be a livable wage, as it was never meant to be a livable wage.

Snake oil salesmen should not be advocating a livable wage; instead, we should all be promoting livable jobs. Jobs that pay well will be here in 20 years and make money for the employer. Canada's manufacturing sector has been and is being gutted by the mass import of goods made out-of-country. Think of how many well paying jobs Guelph has lost in the past 10 years (ABB, Imperial Tobacco, Woods), while most of the new manufacturing jobs everyone is so proud of are not livable jobs. The dregs we have left are mostly low wage, non-livable jobs. While there may still be honour in all work, honour doesn't pay the bills.

We need to encourage people to stay in school, get post-secondary training, complete skills training or pursue a trade. We need to keep business taxes (municipally, provincially and federally) as low as possible. We need to do everything possible to promote and create livable jobs in Canada.

Employees, governments and employers are all in this together. The sooner we all start trying to promote Canadian businesses, instead of fighting for our little piece of the pie, the higher profit and the more livable jobs we will have.

Liberal Party Abandons Guelph

Not much else to say....is there?

A picture is worth a thousand words....

No need to rush into byelection


By Ken Morgan, Captain's Quarters
Columns
Apr 08, 2008

Over the past few weeks there has been speculation and calls from various people for a quick federal byelection here in Guelph. All of which occurred before our current absentee MP had officially left office.

According to Elections Canada, the prime minister must call a byelection six months after the resignation of an MP (hence six months less one day here in Guelph). Judging by the rhetoric, so far all the demands for a byelection I've heard are pure political posturing.

If the people calling for an immediate byelection were so concerned about Guelph not having representation in Ottawa, where have they been the past few years? Why wasn't Jack Layton standing up in the house almost one year ago demanding that Guelph MP Brenda Chamberlain step aside? Why was it that the first I read anywhere about Brenda's appalling attendance record in Ottawa was from this very column in December 2007?

Then a few months later by another columnist in another local paper, another article about her attendance record. Where was everyone who was so concerned about Guelph? Those demanding an immediate byelection care only about themselves, their political parties and their own political aspirations.

The cost of a federal election in Canada is in excess of $300 million, which, considering there are 308 Electoral District Associations (EDAs), works out to approximately $1 million per EDA. Using that formula, a byelection in Guelph will cost taxpayers at least $1 million. Would it not be more financially prudent to wait and see if the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc have the political will to drop the Conservative government in a nonconfidence motion this spring, rather than force the taxpayers and the people of Guelph to endure possibly two federal elections in short order?

Have patience, Guelph will have a new MP soon enough. We've gone almost a year without one . . . and no one seemed to have noticed . . .

* * *

I have never been against any company working within the rules and laws of Canada making a profit from their products and/or services. After all, profits mean jobs, taxes, increase in stock value and dividends (thereby increasing RRSPs and private pension funds). That said, the price of gasoline over the past couple of years charged by the big oil companies is churning my stomach.

I was hoping that I could figure out some way to show that oil companies are simply charging us too much for gasoline in relation to their costs, but I can't. I've spent several hours taking into account the rise in the Canadian dollar, the rise in crude oil costs, the decrease in GST and other taxes, and the numbers don't show anything out of the ordinary. I wish they did, but they don't.

However, I do remember some years back when the public complained about high gasoline prices, the oil companies stated that it took 30 to 45 days for a decrease in the price of crude oil to work its way through the production and distribution systems. So why is it today that any change in the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar or any change in crude oil costs are reflected within hours in the cost at the pumps? It seems that the rules of pricing have changed over the years. Now it seems the oil companies are charging the replacement value of the fuel in the tanks. Interesting. I wonder, though I doubt it, if this means if there is a significant fall in oil prices, they will be selling the fuel in the tanks at a loss.

The only upside to expensive gasoline is that it makes alternative fuels more financially appealing. Let's see what happens in the next 25 years as hydrogen, ethanol and other alternative fuel methods become more economical to produce and sell.