*****

We at Afexa Life Sciences—the makers of COLD-FX—were not contacted for the creation of this article, and appreciate the opportunity to provide our perspective.

COLD-FX’s safety and efficacy is supported by more than 10 clinical trials, conducted at eight universities, and spanning 19 years of research. Published in nine peer-reviewed medical journals, including Pediatrics and The Canadian Medical Association Journal, these trials were conducted with approval from Health Canada and/or the FDA.

Four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trials — the gold standard of clinical evaluation — have evaluated COLD-FX for the prevention of acute upper respiratory tract infections. The results of these trials support COLD-FX’s safety and efficacy in helping reduce the frequency, severity and duration of cold and flu symptoms by boosting the immune system. It was the totality of this evidence that was evaluated by Health Canada in the licensing process, and which resulted in the granting of an NPN (product license for natural health products) to COLD-FX in 2007.

Following are the key results of these 4 clinical trials:

• 26% reduction in the average number of colds and flu
• 56% reduction in the number of recurrent colds and flu
• 31% reduction in the severity of symptoms
• 35% reduction in the duration of symptoms
• 89% reduction in relative risk of colds and flu amongst institutionalized seniors
• Shown to supplement the effectiveness of the flu shot

For more information, please visit http://cold-fx.ca/health_clinical.htm

Michael McDougall
Senior Manager, Media Relations
Afexa Life Sciences

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protection of Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), both presented by U.S. lawmakers, roused fears that sites integral to the social fabric of the World Wide Web would cease to exist. Sites such as YouTube and Facebook, Wikipedia and online communities like Reddit could be shut down because of their file-sharing nature. Through an attempt to limit the illegal downloading of copyright material, such as music and movies, concerns arose that decisions would be carried out leading to close surveillance of every person’s Internet activity.

In response to what was perceived as an attack on the freedoms of the Internet, some websites shut down their services for a day. Wikipedia and Reddit led that charge, and they were joined by numerous others.

When two popular file-sharing sites, megaupload.com and megavideo.com, were brought down the very next day by the FBI, online activist group Anonymous responded in kind by overwhelming U.S. government and entertainment industry websites in retaliation to the point where they could not function. The online world stood up and fought for its rights. Even if those rights are not clearly defined anywhere, the message was sent loud and clear – sudden and dramatic changes are not acceptable.

It is inevitable that, in time, regulations will emerge. The online realm has been the wild west of the new millennium, but as governments and businesses alike become more tech savvy and aware, the domain will be reigned in.

The hope, however, is that there will be a natural progression towards what is acceptable and what is not in terms of new rulings – that any new laws that come about do so organically, with online cultural norms dictating changes as much as business concerns.

Combating online piracy by fining or charging a person who posts a video of a party online without written consent to play the copyrighted song that’s blasting in the background – a reality of the newly proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) – is not going to garner a lot of support from people.

Keeping one’s personal information, as well as records of their Internet activity for 18 months at a time – a provision of the Protect Children from Online Pornographers Act – is also not likely to go over well. While no right-minded person would ever vote in favour of child pornography, having to worry that your Internet provider is saving every Google search conducted in case it needs to be held against you may cause some hesitation. However, while these proposals may seem far reaching, just as the world of business has had to learn to work in the online world, concerned citizens must also learn how to protest in the online world.

Proposed legislation will be revamped and retooled, and a tweet or status update in protest will not resonate with the people proposing this new legislation as they have their sights set on something they envision as a greater good. Poor standing in the court of public opinion will not be enough to stop them; a message must be sent even beyond crashing government websites. A message needs to hit where it counts, and that is right in the financial coffers.

However, of all the sites that went down, those with investors to please, to no surprise, stayed fully functional. While Google did its part to inform visitors of SOPA and PIPA and how to make one’s opposition known, it did not go dark. Not to undermine Wikipedia but a day without Google would have made a more significant impact.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, came under fire on Twitter for the social network’s resistance to support the online protest by shutting down service. Even though he spoke out against the proposed laws, people wanted more action from him. Even for only a day, a darkened Facebook would have really sent shockwaves right across the web as we know it – people would be talking about the day Facebook closed for business for years to come. And the investors and advertisers would be furious.

While the protests have been well broadcast and received plenty of attention in the media, anything concerning messing with the profit margins is talking in a far more powerful way. This is the concept behind the Black March Boycott, organized by online activist group Megauprising.

The idea is to get people to refrain from purchasing movies, music, books, and video games for the month of March. The hope is that enough of an impact will be made that month to end the parade of heavy-handed bills.

It is the kind of decisive action necessary as Internet rights are determined. The web is becoming a battlefield and it will soon become a matter of fact that all is fair in love and online war.

It has permeated news coverage with a rabid intensity, especially since golden boy Sidney Crosby was sidelined for 10 months after a series of especially hard hits left him concussed.

Now it’s back with renewed enthusiasm, as a study performed on NHL enforcer Derek Boogaard’s brain has shown evidence of early stages of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) – a degenerative brain disease.

Crosby’s hardline stance against blows to the head caused the league to empower former player Brendan Shanahan as law enforcer for headshots, and crack down on the practice.

Now the Boogaard findings seem to push for further enforcement – the removal of fighting from the game.

This push does seem logical, considering the stance the league has taken on checks that target the head.

It does stand to reason that it would be hypocritical to remove body checks that involve the head, but continue to allow hockey players to drop the gloves and pound each other into oblivion.

However, that’s a surface assumption. Fighting in hockey has been part of the game essentially since its inception.

Yes, the game has evolved since then – clearly players are no longer running around without helmets.

But it’s a part of the game that both players and fans expect.

There is an element of assumed responsibility present when a player wants to play professional hockey, as there is a danger of injury.

There’s always a risk of damage to organs and extremities, as players break bones, pull muscles and tear tendons on a regular basis.

It’s expected during a career that spans many years.

Head injuries are just another in that list. While they can be more dangerous, they are also expected as part of the game.

Consider this study by the Boston University Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy.

Aside from examining Boogaard’s brain, they also analyzed the brains of more than 70 former athletes, and they told the CBC that more than 50 of those have shown evidence of CTE, including 14 of 15 former NFL players, as well as college and high school football players, other hockey players, pro wrestlers and boxers.

Look at that list – hockey players, football players, pro wrestlers and boxers.

They all share the same occupational hazard: a chance of concussion. No one is calling to end hits to the head in any of those sports, because the expectation is there that they could happen.

The same can be said for hockey.

Should we ban violence in boxing or football because of the danger? Obviously not. Players understand that when they play physical sports, risk exists.

Hypocrisy also undermines the arguments made by Sydney Crosby about headshots. On Nov. 24, his Penguins played the Ottawa Senators. During the game, Crosby saw fit to elbow Sens forward Nick Foligno in the head.

The obvious irony here is a man who is preaching about headshots is smacking someone else in the face with a heavily armored elbow.

It undermines any argument he might make about safety – violence and attacking the head is ingrained in his game, as well.

Clearly, no one sees concussions and head injuries as desirable. But league officials are adamant that physicality and fighting are part of the game.

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman told the Associated Press these injuries are unavoidable, as even a legal hit can lead to a concussion.

Ergo, all physicality would really need to be removed to push the injuries out of the game.

“We play a very fast-paced, physical game in a close environment,” Bettman said. “I think people need to take a deep breath and not overreact.”

New Jersey Devils general manager Lou Lamoriello went a step farther, and said fighting is just part of the game.

“It impedes more injuries to happen because of what potentially can happen with people taking liberties they shouldn’t take,” he said, and it is true that a fistfight is probably preferable to a Marty McSorley-style stick to the face.

It is true that fighting and hitting are not the foundation of hockey.

But to remove concussions and head injuries completely, most physicality and violence must go as well, and this is something that will fundamentally change the game.

It is understood when playing a physical sport that dangers exist, and this is part of a contract entered into when playing the sport.

It exists in football, mixed martial arts and boxing – just as it exists in hockey.

It has lately relented and handed over the documents requested of it, but because of the ferocity with which it defended itself, what should have been a small inconvenience to it is now a grand victory for its rivals.

For the past few months, the CBC/Radio-Canada has received almost 1,500 access-to-information requests.
These requests came from various places, but the bulk of them were from media outlets owned by the Quebecor Media Company.

Quebecor owns Osprey Media, the Sun Media Corporation, the Sun Television Network and 24 Hours.
It contends the CBC is biased and is using taxpayer money inappropriately.

Quebecor is seeking to find out how much money the CBC spends in what places, such as what Peter Mansbridge’s salary is.

The CBC has denied the allegations, saying (quite rightly) that Quebecor is trying to gain a competitive advantage by trying to force it to reveal its journalistic practices.

This has as much to do with Quebecor trying to gain support for its Sun TV network as it is to do with trying to hold the CBC accountable to commissioner Suzanne Legault.

And the CBC was right in its decision not to give Quebecor information about their practices.

The origin of this debate dates back to 2009, when the Information Commissioner of Canada formally was investigating complaints about the CBC refusing to disclose information under Canada’s Access to Information Act.

Section 68.1 of the Broadcasting Act states, “This Act does not apply to any information that is under the control of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that relates to its journalistic,  creative or programming activities, other than information that relates to its general administration.”

The CBC refused, and initiated a judicial review application challenging the Legault office’s authority to obtain records from the CBC.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, the CBC appealed, and the Federal Court of Appeal has taken the matter under reserve.

On Oct. 25, Legault reported to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics that she had formally, “asked the CBC to provide us with information that had been withheld so that we could assess whether its decision on disclosure was justified or whether the withheld information fell within the exception to the exclusion.”

Quebecor has also made numerous claims that the CBC is misspending taxpayers’ money.

It’s very difficult to tell at this point if that claim holds water, though the CBC has used taxpayers’ money to fight the information commissioner.

It’s also true that the CBC has been (until recently) fighting all attempts to access any information about their journalistic, creative, or programming activities.

But in all fairness, Quebecor is opposed to the CBC, both politically and in business. It is also ideologically opposed to the CBC, which has been criticized as left-leaning by various people and organizations.

And it’s not just CBC that gets money from the Canadian government.

Hubert Lacroix. CBC’s president and CEO, recently said CTV, Global, and Quebecor all receive support from the government.

He listed the Canada Media Fund and the CRTC-run Local Programming Fund as government packages that are available to all Canadian broadcasters.

When CBC refused to disclose its practices, though, Quebecor took this as an admission of guilt.

The upshot is that Quebecor has successfully portrayed the CBC to the public as an opaque and unaccountable organization.

But really, it’s doubtful that the information commissioner will divulge what she learns about the CBC.

It seems most citizens hold dearly their libraries, their museums, their centres for cultural resonance and the arts. They require prompt garbage and recycling pick-up, as well as quick and frequent snow clearing. Subsidized daycare and childcare is deemed essential and at the forefront. Many feel as though the TTC needs more funding, as to make public transit more accessible and usable in an increasingly congested city, plagued by hordes of traffic.

All of these services are certainly worthwhile to many people in the city – and may even be worthwhile in ways that people don’t realize affect their everyday lives.

But there is one thing that certainly connects all these services: they cost money. A lot of it.

This is something the people of Toronto (and often people in general) don’t want coming out of their pockets. It’s a campaign promise almost incessantly: no new taxes. Tim Hudak’s branding of Premier Dalton McGuinty as “the tax man” for months on end on the provincial campaign trail was proof enough of that.

Quite simply, this is just unrealistic. There is no way to keep all these services in an uncertain and in many cases, plummeting and volatile economy. Something has to give.

This is not to say that services like childcare and snow clearing should vanish or diminish, nor should cultural programs or funding for the arts. Quite simply, they are a large part of what makes Toronto great. This city has a rich cultural history made better by the many and varied people that call it home. Arts programs and festivals like the Toronto International Film Festival are a big draw, and essential to the cultural heart of such a major centre.

But it is completely unrealistic for people to cry foul when they elect an extremely conservative mayor who rides in on a wave of support based upon cuts, and then starts to mention cuts in the same breath as these services. It was inevitable.

After not finding any of his oft-publicized gravy (a big surprise there), Rob Ford faces a huge deficit, and so turns his eye to services.

Ford wants to cut libraries? No, the public cries, this is inexcusable (and you should know Margret Atwood). Ford wants to cut child care in secret, back-room meetings? No, the public cries, not in our city (and stop holding these meetings in secret). Ford wants to close some museums? No, the public cries, these museums are integral to our cultural heritage (even though we’ve largely never stepped foot in them).

So what is the last resort for a city that is wallowing in deficit, but still needs all the services it currently enjoys? A tax hike, clearly. It is the only real way to keep things flowing as they should, especially considering the volatile economy and inflation. But this is something that people cannot seem to accept, even though it is a reality.

Many cry that city officials should take a hit, citing over-inflated salaries. And while that may be the case in some instances, that would do little to help the roughly $774 million plus deficit being projected for 2012.

With the recent call for $74.4 million of provincial funds to help Toronto’s 2,000 daycare spaces, once more the answer lies in the pockets of the people, though they would much rather not admit it. Sure, the buck is passed from the municipal level to the provincial, but from where is that cash flowing?

It is time for citizens to make a choice – do we want to do things cheaply? If so, this is a possibility – but infrastructure will suffer, as will almost certainly the arts. People will save money, but miss out on a lot of what makes Toronto attractive. But if people want things to run as they have been and to even improve them, then they will have to reach into their own pockets to make it happen. It’s not an altogether pleasant solution, but it is a realistic one – and something with which people must come to terms.

Quite simply: if you want stuff, you must pay for stuff.

Should you not pay for stuff, it disappears.

In reality, the biggest thing hurting the occupy movement is the lack of well-defined leaders. It is too big, too unwieldy, and in very real danger of collapsing under its own sense of self-importance. Someone needs to step forward and give a unified message that people can support — outside of buzzword slogans like “we are the 99 per cent.” Strangely enough, that has never been more evident than on Oct. 13, when musician Tom Morello showed up at the centre of Occupy Wall Street.

Morello has always been politically inclined — moving from the dissent-spewing Rage Against the Machine to Audioslave to his acoustic political-folk persona the Nightwatchman. His great-uncle was Kenya’s first prime minister and he’s also a Harvard political science graduate.

He played for protesters on the 13th, after an immense push on Twitter to get him down there. But it was his 10 minute question-and-answer session with reporters afterwards that really turned heads – here was a very well spoken, very well educated man of the people outlying the points that the occupy movement needed to address in a very astute and unified way. He spoke about the need for change in the U.S., the presidency, and the distaste that these protesters feel over the people who currently control this world not deserving it. In doing so, he illustrated that this movement needs him – or if not him, a person much like him.

Morello is a strange blend of street credit and upper-tier education – an unlikely folk hero who unites grass roots movement, rock and roll, and the dignified poise of a Harvard grad. He is a man that these people can respect and rally behind, while still speaking in a way that politicians cannot dismiss. He’s too well educated to be shut down, but also wrote the mid-nineties anthem “Bulls on Parade”. He’s an intrinsic leader – and in a scant 10 minutes, he showed just how devoid this movement is of a person of his calibre.

The argument can be made that one person could warp the movement, shaping it to suit their own goals. This is supposed to be for the people and by the people – could one person really signify the 99 per cent? Most likely not, not in a way that could suit every single immeasurable issue that’s being chanted in these streets. But without a person like Morello, these issues blow in the wind without resolution. Calling for change is one thing – but having a set plan as to how to achieve that change is quite another.

Consider Gandhi as a leader. Clearly Morello and the Mahatma are not at all on the same plane of existence as leaders and visionaries, what with Gandhi’s tenure leading India’s independence movement in the early twentieth century. But he was another grass roots leader, uniting a group of very disenfranchised people and organizing them to escape oppression, in this case – British colonialism. This wouldn’t have happened without Gandhi, and he was very much a leader that was speaking for his people, and organizing a mass movement.

There’s also the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S., something that would not have happened without visionaries like Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X. They weren’t official leaders, but they were people that could speak to the needs of their movement in a very unified way. That is something that Occupy protesters need to legitimize their movement.

We all know the Western world is leaving people behind. We all know there are injustices here that shouldn’t be. The ideals of this movement are fine in theory, but without a person to corral these ideas into something cohesive, the Occupy movement is likely to languish at the fringes of society and flail before it instigates any real change. Morello isn’t going to be their leader, but his speaking out signifies the absolute need for one.

To be clear, women have accomplished a lot in the past 50 years. The kind of high-profile sexual harassment suits that routinely bring down powerful men in business and politics were unheard of in the ’50s.

Women have made huge gains in their private, social, and political lives, and because of this, the feminist movement is starting to become more international in scope.

But the goals of the ‘60s feminist movement haven’t been met yet, and women in Canada still aren’t equal to men.

According to an Aug. 31, 2011 survey compiled by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (a group that monitors women in politics internationally) Canada is tied with Australia at number 38 for the number of women in politics.

The survey said women in Canada make up only 35 per cent of the Senate, and 25 per cent of the House of Commons.

A paper published by the Canadian Parliament said women working full-time for the entire year only earn 71.4 per cent of what men do.

According to The Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, 2010 was the first time women have not made gains in U.S. Congress since 1979.

And in a 2009 poll by Catalyst Census, women only hold 10 per cent of the seats on the boards of all Canadian public companies. A 2011 report by SHARE, a shareholder association for research and education, found almost half of the boards of directors for S&P/THX had no women at all.

It’s becoming clear that although women have made significant gains since the ’50s, the momentum of the feminist movement is slowing down.

Following the efforts of suffragettes to win women the vote decades earlier, the ’60s brought with it the second wave of feminism.

With the ’60s came the pill, which was a catalyst for the sexual revolution and sexual empowerment.

But there was a revelation that came about after a decade or so of sexual liberation — women realized that while having control over their reproductive choices gave them new freedom in their careers and social lives, assuming the sexual behaviour of men was not the same as empowering themselves.

Then came the ’80s and ’90s, which brought in the third wave of feminism, and post-feminism.
Third-wave feminism broadened the definitions set by the second wave, but it was also a reaction against the strict views of second-wave feminists.

Second-wave feminism often assumed all women had the same values, identity, and problems, and the third wave sought to add nuance to that argument.

It recognized, for example, that some women wanted the opportunity to be home to raise their children.
So issues became clouded, and feminist schools of thought diverged and fell to in-fighting.

What the new generation was exposed to was still feminism, but a feminism that seemed to encourage rejecting the notions of previous feminists, instead of building on them – it was a teenage rebellion within the feminist movement.

Today’s post-feminism isn’t much like the feminism that came before it. It’s a generation removed from the feminism of the ’60s, and young women today are either indifferent to the movement or they only know enough about it to know they don’t want to be second-wave or even third-wave feminists.

It’s a reaction to feminism, instead of a continuation of it.

Worse, there’s a feeling with a lot of women now that “feminism” is a dirty word — it’s become associated with the bra-burning hard line feminists of the ’60s, when in actuality second-wave feminists are just women who wanted to have the same rights and be treated with the same respect as men.

In the ‘60s women marched for affirmative action rights, equality of education, and a change in social attitudes towards women.

Today, women march in Slut Walks for the right to wear what they want and to not be judged, and to not be seen as responsible for sexual assaults because of what they wear.

At best, it’s a shallow issue — it’s a protest about fashion, and it’s easy to see why the second wave of feminists are frustrated by the current generation.

In 1992, legislation amended the Criminal Code of Canada to establish a rape shield law — a law that set out strict guidelines for when and how a person’s sexual history could be revealed at a trial.

This change to the Criminal Code was similar to the rape shield statutes that were adopted by American courts in the ’70s and ’80s.

A report by the California Western School of Law cites Wendy Murphy, a former sex-crimes prosecutor who now teaches at the New England School of Law. She said in an interview about the Kobe Bryant rape case:

“‘The … case has exploited every myth about women (except the ‘virgin’ myth). That women are mentally ill, and vindictive, and lie for sport.That false allegations are common, and women like men to force themselves on them because they’re not allowed to be sexually aggressive. Those kinds of suggestions, and their implication that certain women are more likely to be lying, or that they ‘had it coming to them,’ are the kinds of implications the rape shield laws addressed.”

It’s difficult for women who remember this to accept the reclamation of the word “slut,” and it’s frustrating for them because there are still plenty of areas where women have yet to make sufficient headway.

There have been significant gains made for women over the past few decades, but employment is still not equitable.

On top of that, conditions for women living in second- and third-world countries are often terrible. Women in many countries are still treated as second-class citizens.

It would be difficult for any woman coming from one of those countries to be sympathetic to the causes post-feminists have chosen to endorse.

And indeed, it’s even difficult for the young women of today to sign up for contemporary feminism.

There isn’t as clear a direction as there was in the ’60s, and there seems to be an attitude among young women that someone else will do the rest of the work for them.

Worse than that, there’s a feeling among young people today (both men and women) that the battle has already been won — but clearly that’s not the case.

So yes, feminism has come a long way. And yes, the two genders are closer to being equal in first-world countries than they ever have been before.

But there is still inequality between the sexes in both western society and in the world. And too many young women today aren’t motivated to do anything about it.

From budget cuts to the Margret Atwood debacle, this man has very clearly shown that his particular brand of buffoonery is something he just cannot help.

This has been no more evident than with Ford’s mishandling of his latest incident, in which he called 911 after being ambushed by comedian Mary Walsh, of CBC-TV’s This Hour Has 22 Minutes.

Toronto pressed upon the mayor once again, especially after CBC produced a report from what it called “several credible sources” that Ford had berated 911 operators, with catch phrases like “I’m Rob f—ing Ford, you f—ing bitches.”

This was refuted by Toronto Police Services Commissioner Bill Blair of all people, who had listened to the tapes and said that Ford, though swearing and blustering (as is his custom), did not call anyone a bitch as the CBC reported.

This is where the problem lies.

Though Ford has made no shortage of mistakes, he does not deserve to be berated for things that didn’t happen. And while the CBC report was deemed false, people in Toronto still seem inclined to ride him about it.

CBC never seemed to formally apologize either — instead Chris Ball of CBC public affairs simply said “we have multiple, credible, well-placed sources within TPS, including a dispatcher, we are reporting what was told to us.”

The CBC mistake is something that’s been seemingly swept under the rug or even deliberately ignored by the public, as popular perception deems Ford should have played along with Walsh’s surprise gag. For his part, Ford has not chosen to release the tapes.

As the CBC has seemingly made a mistake, it should apologize. There’s no need for mass firings or any heads to hit the chopping block, but a simple acknowledgement that they screwed up would go a long way in this instance.

Not for Walsh’s initial Ford “ambush,” as that’s part of her shtick — but for the report on the 911 call, pointing fingers when they shouldn’t have been.

There’s also the rumblings amongst conservatives looking to pull much of the public funding that CBC garners — something that would be a disservice to the media outlet itself. To diffuse some of these battles with something like an apology would go a long way,

Then consider the front page of The Toronto Star on Friday, Oct. 28. Though this story had broken close to a week earlier, the Star was still attempting “in-depth analysis” of the CBC debacle. There was nothing new to report — rather, it just showcased the same old questions with stills from the footage everyone has already seen.

This wouldn’t be acceptable in any other instance, especially on the front page. So why is it deemed acceptable and newsworthy here?

It’s because Ford is easy to hate. He plays the part of a rampaging schoolyard bully well, all bluster and blowhard. His suits don’t fit, he’s constantly on the prowl for fictitious and insurmountable gravy, and he seems to be about 15 seconds away from a heart attack at any given time.

In a battle where it’s Ford versus the little guy and the little guy is everyone that isn’t Ford, most people tend to root for the underdog.

While this is often enticing, it is also not fair. It’s a mob mentality that serves no real purpose. For all his flaws, the man doesn’t deserve to be berated for things he didn’t do. Though he didn’t take the Mary Walsh incident in stride in a way that would have diffused the whole situation, he shouldn’t be mocked for things he didn’t say.

Relations between Ford and Blair have been strained at the best of times, so it’s a small wonder it was the TPS chief coming to his aid.

Yet the public and the media are still unrelenting.

Consider Keith Olbermann’s recent decree that Rob Ford is one of “the worst people in the world”. While Olbermann is a U.S television personality vying for ratings and somewhat sensationalizing, isn’t this a bit of a stretch? Were there no dictators or murderers hanging about that day? While the man clearly lacks integral social skills that any politician should have, calling him “the worst person in the world” is a bit much.

Media outlets should lay off Rob Ford for things he didn’t do. He has plenty of time left in office, and no doubt there will be a plethora of things he’ll do or say during that time to pounce upon. Let him make his own mistakes — don’t push for more.

The movement is coming north, but it’s not clear what Canadian protesters will be angry about, and after three weeks it’s not even clear what the protesters in New York want.

A quick glance at the crowds gathered at Wall Street show a dozen different signs — with just as many conflicting messages.

The protesters seem delighted the world is watching them, but they don’t have a leader or a unified message, so when they’re actually put in the spotlight they stumble.

Either they fall back on clichéd protest slogans or throw a mix of causes at the camera.

It makes them look confused, which makes it easy for people to dismiss them.

It’s been argued that this is the downfall of grassroots movements, but there are plenty of recent, successful, large-scale grassroots movements that also had a unifying message, and clear aim.

The Arab Spring movement had many of the same elements the Occupy Wall Street movement does, and indeed, that’s why people have been drawing the analogy. But the two are profoundly different.

According to their website, Occupy Wall Street is a, “resistance movement employing the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to restore democracy in America,” which is ludicrous.

The revolutions in the Arab world were focused political movements with specific aims. They were protests against corrupt or oppressive governments, dictatorships — governments that held absolute power over their people.

Occupy Wall Street is about poor and jobless people protesting a more modest injustice — the people responsible for the 2008 recession have never been held accountable, and continue to make large amounts of money while many people can’t find jobs.

Or at least, that’s what it should be about.

If you believe the protest signs, it’s also about big oil, the Federal Reserve, raising taxes on big corporations, free education, corporate greed, canceling student debts, and nuclear disarmament (to name a few).

The protesters are angry about the things people always face in a recession, and without an obvious enemy they’ve chosen to focus their anger on Wall Street.

What’s confusing is that the movement is spreading north.

It makes sense for people to be protesting the lack of accountability from investors and banks in the U.S., but not in Canada. We weathered the recession far better than our neighbours did.

We also recovered faster. We still aren’t at pre-recession levels of employment, but we’re in far better shape than the U.S.

The protests in Canada won’t be about how terribly Bay Street messed up our lives, and they certainly won’t be an Arab Spring-style call for regime change.

Canadians have far less to protest than Americans or people from the Middle East.

Occupy Wall Street has gained traction among political parties and individuals who have the money and power to make the changes the protesters are talking about, but who don’t have any reason to change the way things are now — the Democrats and Kanye West both support the movement, and neither are in a position to complain about people being greedy.

So the protest smacks of hypocrisy — people moan about being poor while tweeting about their protest from iPhones and iPads.

If the protesters want to be taken seriously, they need to decide on a single issue to rally behind, they need a leader who can speak for the entire group, and they need to make sure their cause isn’t diluted by sympathy protests that don’t have anything to complain about.