Maybe you had to be there

While looking into our own War Museum's approach to the role of Bomber Command during WWII, I came across a site in Britain, detailing a recent exhibit in Manchester, England. The Imperial War Museum's air war display closed recently. It was called AGAINST ALL ODDS. When I read the piece I marvelled at their disparate ways in which this period in our common history have been portrayed.

The exhibit at the Imperial War Museum didn't omit facts -- it presented Germany's estimated death toll and examined German losses, but its focus was on the accomplishments of Bomber Command despite the risks, hardship, privations and fear faced by the airmen. It treated the fliers with respect and honour.

"Against The Odds is the first major exhibition to look at the role of Bomber Command. From the first day of the Second World War until the Allied invasion of Germany in 1944, the bombing of Germany and allied countries in the Second World War by British and American forces made a vital contribution to the defeat of the Nazis. Bomber Command was the only British force to strike directly at the enemy's homeland.

"They came from across the Commonwealth, and alongside the United States Air Force, their role was the destruction of Germany's industrial, economic and military strength.

"But the cost was great: 55, 888 Bomber Command personnel were killed in action or on active service. 51 out of every 100 flyers did not return."
Michael Simpson, Head of Exhibitions at Imperial War Museum North

Whether it's the length of time that's elapsed since WWII, or Canada's physical distance from the action in WWII, or simply that we have scarcely seen hostilities on our soil in nearly 200 years, the Canadian War Museum's plaque, AN ENDURING CONTROVERSY -- is a painful example of historical contrition without benefit of sufficiently balanced background information. The cries of neutrality are strained when presented against the entirety of the display. This sermonizing and genuflecting at the altar of anti-war zealotry seems an effort to distance ourselves from our true military past. It's like an act of penance to purge a national sin.

Canada's Veterans are a humble lot. They aren't inclined to glorify war or their own contributions. Most of them are anti-war because they've been there and they know war firsthand. The War Museum has been entrusted with the preservation of their stories inside the framework of the war itself. The Museum's unyielding attachment to this paragraph, and its unbalanced display, despite the offense and injury to our Veterans, is unfathomable. Our Veterans don't deserve to be treated as though their service is an asterisk in the war effort. They don't deserve to feel as though they are trying to keep skeletons in the closet.

Contrast this paragraph with the above text from the Imperial War Museum:

"The value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested. Bomber Command's aim was to crush civilian morale and force Germany to surrender by destroying its cities and industrial installations. Although Bomber Command and American attacks left 600,000 Germans dead, and more than five million homeless, the raids resulted in only small reductions in German war production until late in the war."

The author of this paragraph is unable to think outside post-1960s assumptions about war -- all war. He has failed as an historian, because he has been unable to see the world from the perspective of his subject. At the outset, he has told us of a debate, and we expect balance because he has indicated that there are two sides to the role and the outcome of Bomber Command's mission -- but then he presents only one. If this were fictional, I might call it author intrusion. The writer wants so badly for the reader to take a particular point of view, that despite claiming objectivity, he provides limited scope and gives speculation and conjecture in the form of 'fact'. It is irresponsible at best and it is unethical at worst.

In defense of the paragraph, Dean F. Oliver says:

The text panel, "An Enduring Controversy," has attracted more public attention than any other, but it reflects the museum's overall approach. (...) Nowhere in this approach -- and certainly not in any of our dialogues with veterans -- does the Canadian War Museum see fundamental contradictions between presenting history as accurately as possible and remembering respectfully those whose actions in peace and war have done so much to shape this country.

It has been suggested that the Museum can't ignore 'difficult subjects' and that it's 'dangerous' to 'rewrite history' which implies the Veterans want the facts expunged from the display. What the Veterans really want, is for 'facts' to be presented at all. This plaque stands as a summary of the exhibit. It is general idea that visitors will take from the display. The people who run the War Museum have taken an intractable stance against the Royal Canadian Legion about this paragraph and the photographs chosen to reveal the story.

Let's look at the 'facts'.

First, most historians put the German civilian losses in a range from 350,000 to 600,000. Both are huge numbers, but the War Museum has taken the high-end estimate and used it as a factual total, and yet there is no accepted 'factual' total -- only estimates. The decision to use the high estimate without explaining that totals are impossible to ascertain, renders the credibility of the whole display suspect. It suggests the authors intended to lead visitors in a particular direction.

Second, by belittling the mission, it implies there was no reasoning behind the bombing, when in fact the strategy was used only after others had failed. Daylight raids had resulted in huge losses for the Allies early on in the war, so Britain used the Lancaster and Halifax Bombers, which were heavy and meant to be flown at night -- night bombing means area bombing. Little chance of pinpoint accuracy, but a better chance of getting the load off at all, without being shot down. Bomber Command put the safety of their fliers above the civilians of an enemy population bent on total war against all non-Germanic peoples. It was the only rational way to fight the war. Any other decision would have meant the deaths of more crews. As it was, even using night-bombing 51 out of every 100 fliers were killed in action. The Americans tried daylight, pinpoint bombing. It lasted less than a year -- not much longer than Bomber Command's initial attempts early in the war. The losses were simply too great. Later in the war, there were finally Allied troops on the ground in Europe and technology was moving ahead. Precision bombing became doable without being suicide. Strategy changed.

Third, it is misleading to say that "the raids resulted in only small reductions in German war production until late in the war."

Germany's production continued throughout the war because Germany had invaded all its neighbours and used their factories and workers to build munitions.
How many more guns, planes, bullets, mines, tanks, and V-bombs could they have built without the continuous disruptions of manufacturing and shipping lines by Bomber Command?
How much longer might the war have lasted?
How many more Allied soldiers and civilians might have been killed had bombing raids never happened?
How many more innocent people could have been sent to the ovens?

The War Museum plaque doesn't even ask these questions, let alone attempt to answer them. This is the synopsis, yet it has ignored issues which are imperative to understanding the role of Bomber Command.

AN ENDURING CONTROVERSY, the paragraph, is more "bitterly contested" than the rest of the Bomber Command display in its totality. Despite Director Oliver's assurance to the contrary, it is at the very least incomplete and because of that, it is indeed, disrespectful. The Museum's unwavering attachment to it, despite the anguish it has caused many Veterans, is shameful and unreasonable.

This is not about free speech. This is about presenting history realistically. No one wants to purge the historical record of evidence and facts, but our Veterans don't deserve to be equated with their wartime enemy. This display might be the only information a visitor will ever see or hear on the air war. Questioning their morality and belittling the value of their mission gives the impression of parity between the actions of the Nazis and those of Bomber Command.

It doesn't serve history well to ignore the painful parts, but neither does it serve our understanding of the past to take a sliver of time and interpret it, without conveying a sense of the historic reality. At least a century's distance from acts of war on Canadian soil has allowed us the illusion of being 'peacemaker' and 'peacekeeper' of the world. In order to reconcile its vision of our nice country with reality, the War Museum has chosen to pull a chapter from a bloody, protracted war and unjustly use it as a Scarlet 'A'.

And yet the Museum still doesn't understand the fuss. The Brits and the Veterans lived it. Maybe some people would have had to be there to get it.

canadianna

Oooops!

***UPDATE -- Vaasuhan was found yesterday afternoon and returned to the Whitby Mental Health Centre. Thank God.

It could have been a plot for a movie. Wait -- it was.

Reminiscent of the film The Dream Team, which starred Michael Keaton and Peter Boyle, a Whitby mental patient has gone missing from a 'field trip' to a baseball game. Unlike the movie, where the patients were lovable misfits, the real life missing man, Mylvaganam Vaasuhan, is a paranoid schizophrenic who is without the medication he needs to control his sexual urges.

Apparently, the 31 year old, who was found 'not criminally responsible' was put away after sexually assaulting two girls in 2001. This known pedophile 'wandered away' during the outing, and no one knows where he might have gone.

Earlier this month, the Whitby facility had trouble finding a different patient who had escaped. Yet just two weeks later, they obviously felt confident enough to actually bring a group of mental patients to a Blue Jays game.

What's that joke about the inmates running the asylum? Well, when a pedophile is involved, it isn't funny.

canadianna

Degrees of morality at the War Museum

Don Martin wrote again about the Royal Canadian Legion's fight against one of the exhibits at the Canadian War Museum. Martin is of the opinion that Vets are wrong to object to the wording of the contentious "An Enduring Controversy" display. Needless to say I think he's wrong as usual.

The exhibit in question attempts to give perspective and background to the role of Bomber Command and the air war prior to D-Day. This quote from the War Museum backgrounder is meant to set out the museum's position that they have handled this exhibition respectfully and accurately:

The panel states, essentially, that the morality and value of the Allies' strategic bombing campaign continues to be the subject of intense debate, that the raids achieved a high level of physical destruction throughout Germany, and that they failed to reduce substantially German war production until the later months of the war.

While arguing that this display is balanced because the Museum is simply reflecting the reality that the 'morality' and 'value' of the raids are debatable, they present as FACT that the raids were largely ineffective. If the value of the raids is subject to 'intense debate' why are they saying unequivocally that the raids were largely a failure? If the backgrounder is an accurate telling of what the display holds, a visitor might well come away believing not that the raids were 'controversial' but that they were IN FACT ineffective because that's what the display says. And yet we're told it's a point for debate . . . obviously it's a debate in which the CWM has decided to draw the correct conclusion for us.

Does it really shock them that the Veterans would take issue with such a poorly constructed idea?

Now, if the raids were ineffective, but caused 'large-scale physical destruction' of Germany -- it doesn't take a huge leap to realize that it is being broadly hinted that the raids were also 'immoral'. Such pervasive, continuous, long-term devastation resulted -- and yet without fulfilling any significant military goals. The question becomes why did they keep doing it if it didn't have value to the war effort? Weighed against the civilian death toll, what's a bunch of ineffective destruction?

Where's the debate?

Where's the side that says that the bombing drew resources and attention away from other battles and fronts and perhaps saved hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers and civilians because of weapons never built and shipments that never reached their destinations. Where is the side that says that had the Allies not persisted in bombing, D-Day might never have been possible because the Germans would likely been able to hold the Allies off using the resources that would not have been destroyed in the raids? Apparently that's there. Sort of. The backgrounder doesn't give details, but it says:

The display presents an important episode in Canadian military history, some strategic perspective, relevant military details, and personal testimonies. These individual elements combine to give visitors a clear sense of the historical importance and continuing relevance of Canadian contributions to the air war.

If the display is as limited in its perspective as the backgrounder suggests, it has not presented a debate. It has stated that there is debate, and then it has pronounced its own version of truth.

But what really must irk the veterans is the suggestion that their actions were immoral. IMMORAL. That there's even a debate about this is an insult.

Don Martin thinks not -- he says:

The veterans went to great lengths to decipher defamatory meanings in seemingly innocuous words, argue the exhibit paints them as war criminals and insist it shows more empathy for civilian deaths than their casualties. (...) Unfortunately, despite being a class-act crowd, the veterans did not change my mind.

Is it really that hard to understand that it isn't the facts that are the main point of contention?

Questioning the morality of the participants is what has drawn their ire. It isn't just the morality of the mission the CWM is challenging -- which would be bad enough -- it is the morality of those airmen who obeyed orders as part of the bombing campaign. It stands to reason that if the raids were immoral, then so were its perpetrators -- and we've already established the CWM understanding of 'debate'. Following orders is not an excuse for immoral behaviour in the military. If the raids were immoral, we must conclude that so were our fliers. Maybe. But because we don't know for sure, that means the display is balanced.

How can we place modern day value judgments on the air raids of WWII? How can we make judgments at all without viewing the war in its totality, and purging ourselves of the knee-jerk anti-war sentiments that have coloured our perspective of all of our military history? The CWM insists:

This (display) cannot be done selectively, by ignoring difficult subjects.

It is one thing to say that 'today, we would not use these tactics' but the emphasis has to be on the fact that in those times, in those circumstances, those raids were not immoral. Context is essential, and although the backgrounder says it provides context and lauds the sacrifices of our servicemen, it's a backhanded commendation when this display has as its focus and first comments, the dubious morality of the events. The subject matter is not difficult --- the slant is.

The concentration camps were immoral.
The starvation and execution of our POWs at the hands of the Germans was immoral.

Those who run the War Museum might contend that they are not equating our fliers with the people who perpetrated those atrocities -- but then, what degree of immorality would they attribute to our airmen and their mission?

Germans have acknowledged and apologized for the events of the holocaust, but never have they questioned the morality of their war tactics against Britain. They have never hinted at regret about our POWs. We're not talking here of one-sided, wanton murder -- this was WAR!! Is there anything moral about war? If you've answered no, then get off the idea that these men are somehow deserving of this kind of particular and negative scrutiny in the morality department.

The backgrounder goes on to say:

In part as a result of public comments and suggestions, including consultations with veterans of the air war, the CWM subsequently added material defining the term "strategic bombing" itself and explaining the military-political context in which its use became commonplace. We also added the three first-person quotations mentioned above, additional material on the German resources drained from other fronts by the Allied air campaign, and a photograph of a massive German flak (anti-aircraft) tower. (...) Nowhere in this approach, and certainly not in any of our dialogues with veterans, does the Canadian War Museum see fundamental contradictions between presenting history as accurately as possible and remembering respectfully those whose actions in peace and war have done so much to shape this country.

To pretend that this is about historical accuracy is disingenuous. It isn't. The display would have been just as accurate without impugning the integrity, character and morality of those who served in Bomber Command. There is no other way to interpret the suggestion of immorality. It taints everything else. It is not fact, it is a value judgment -- and it is a damaging one.

Don Martin said in March:

But after five prominent historians vetted and vindicated the wording, the only quibble from one was to wonder if the agreed-upon facts were worthy of public presentation and, thus, preservation. (...) Damn right they are. This is Canada, not a place like China where history is subject to periodic revision by the ruling class to create non-persons or purge unpleasant events from the record. Our history is factual, not popular fiction.

Unpleasant truths? This isn't the Somalia scandal. What is he implying the Veterans want to purge? They don't want to destroy the record -- they want to have the facts presented without Monday-morning-quarterbacks saying they were wrong to have done what they did, because their side of the 'debate' says they weren't. Is that side presented in the display?

Martin went on to say:

Lest we forget, 10,000 crew members in Bomber Command died defending our freedom. And nobody said that excluded freedom of speech.

So clever to use their sacrifices as a weapon against them -- but where is their voice in all this 'freedom of speech'?

Those who run the War Museum politely resent their efforts being deemed 'disrespectful', so they've set up the backgrounder to set out their point of view.

Gosh, imagine how they'd feel if they were veterans and their wartime service and that of their fallen comrades, was held up as possibly 'immoral' and definitely 'without value'.
They'd probably like to see the record set straight.

canadianna

Arts smarts? I think not

Writer Yann Martel is getting worldwide press about his campaign to get more federal arts funding by sending books to Stephen Harper. The first parcel Harper is scheduled to receive is "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" by Russian author Leo Tolstoy.

It's a cute idea really and has obviously garnered attention, which I guess is the point.

A couple of questions though.

If a Canadian author is trying to solicit funding from the Prime Minister of Canada, why is he using a Russian writer to do it? Aren't there examples of fine Canadian writing that might just as easily open Mr. Harper's eyes to the joys of 'art'?

And secondly, how much government funding do you figure Tolstoy received in order to complete this, or any other of his celebrated works?

canadianna.

Dion prefers the status quo

It's always bothered me that Quebec didn't ratify the Constitution. It feels like the whole family is gathering for a special dinner, and one member had a major issue about what was being served and his place at the table. Instead of putting off the dinner and working out the details to suit everyone -- it was prepared and served -- rushed into, despite that person's refusal to attend.

In a family, it might be necessary to proceed without all parties, time and outside obligations playing a part -- but in a nation, regardless of how rigid a demand or how unyielding the response, the dinner shouldn't have proceeded without all parties present. What was the rush to get the constitution through right then? It was a time of social and political upheaval in Quebec, and yet those at the helm were so impatient, that they adopted a nationally defining document that left out one of the elders of Confederation.

Maybe the framers relied on the idea that the ROC would see Quebec as a whiner and dissenter. They could actually grant Quebec special status within Canada, by adopting a constitution that Quebec wouldn't endorse. Those representing Quebec must have realized that so long as they remained outside the constitution, they would always have the 'distinct' status they sought, but without the constraints of working within the same boundaries that applied to the other provinces. Whatever, but the fallout from those decisions have carried through and will continue to haunt this country until something is done to heal this festering sore.

Stéphane Dion said Sunday that the Constitution should not be re-opened because:

“My view is that we have terrible challenges in Canada regarding competitiveness. The world is tough. If we want to keep our standard of living and pass on to our children a better quality of life, we need to tackle this issue. Climate change and the environment is [also] a huge issue and none of these issues that are facing us, including social justice ... request a constitutional change to deal with.”

There are plenty of things to think about besides some stupid piece of paper that we really didn't need in the first place, but were I a politician, I would think that having all of the provinces under the constitutional umbrella would be at least as important as climate change -- given that climate change is or isn't going to happen, regardless of Kyoto and carbon credits. Shouldn't we do as St. Francis prayed -- change the things we can rather than fixating on what we can't?

The constitution is an abstract to most of us. It doesn't really come into our every day lives, but doesn't it stand to reason that if our provinces were expending less energy competing with each other for federal attention, the might actually be more competitive globally?

The national unity issue comes and goes from our minds, but it is always there, simmering. It bubbles just under the surface and it affects everything the federal government does from transfer payments to awarding contracts. It causes suspicion and jealousy amongst the provinces and throughout the populace. Who amongst us hasn't felt at some point that Ottawa was pandering to Quebec or ignoring one or more of the 'lesser' provinces?

So long as Quebec remains outside the Constitution, a separate and disctinct entity within the nation, the need for Ottawa to take a special interest will remain. Dumont has opened up the possibility of Quebec ratifying the constitution. Given that under the Liberals we acknowledged Quebec's 'distinct' status, and now under the Conservatives, we have acknowledged their 'nationhood' -- why would Dion object to putting Quebec on the same footing as the rest of Canada constitutionally?

Maybe Dion likes the idea of a Quebec that stays outside the fray, a Quebec Ottawa will have to buy, a Quebec that is slightly more important than say, Alberta or Newfoundland because of it's perpetual promise to jump ship. Maybe Dion recognizes that without the Quebec card to play somewhere down the line, the Liberal hand is a loser.

Dion's brilliant -- May? Not so much

Most of the criticism of the Grit-Green deal in Central Nova is aimed at Stephane Dion, but that guy is one shrewd operator. In one fell swoop he eliminates the competition, while giving the appearance of having only altruistic motivations.

Clever.

The same can't be said of Elizabeth May.

The Green Party sees itself as centrist. It stands left on most environmental and social issues, and mostly right fiscally. It also sees itself as a fresh alternative to the 'big three' mainstream parties.

That's all gone now.

Elizabeth May has done a lot of damage to her party. Her message to Greens and prospective Greens is that the vision of the Party, the long-term aims that were just starting to be taken seriously -- those goals, those ideals -- are secondary to beating/humiliating Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. She's giving up on Green.

At a time when the Greens have seen their best showing in an election and have been the beneficiary of the election laws that augment their coffers for each vote, the Greens should have been prepared for the next election as being their break-through chance. The environment is their issue, and it's hot. They could be setting the agenda. Instead, it will likely be their demise.

Stephane Dion supported Elizabeth May in her bid to participate in the Leadership Debate. Although without a seat in Parliament it is unlikely she would have been allowed, she has just blown the opportunity of receiving scads of free publicity come election time. Her fight to join the leadership debate would have been the chance to get her message out during an election. It would have been a free vehicle to headlines. And she traded it in for a chance to lose, while being endorsed by a Liberal. What an idiot.

Dion is laughing. He's just neutralized his enemy. So what if there's no Liberal in Central Nova -- there's no Green in the Leadership Debate.

canadianna

Free? Nothing's Free

The lawyers for the plaintiffs in the class-action suit against OLG are proposing a 'free' lottery with a jackpot worth up to $1 billion, to make up for the corruption that's been alleged.

There's a lot wrong with the OLG, beyond even the current scandal. Things like spending millions of dollars to drop the 'C' from their logo and advertising --- millions of dollars -- all those light up store signs -- everything had to be changed in order to remove that word from the name. Who got the advertising contracts? the contracts to make the new signs etc.? With that kind of stupidity going on at the top, is it any wonder that there was also nonsense all the way down the ranks.

This class action suit might seem like a great idea, but in the end, all of us will pay -- even those of us who never play. How fair is that when there can be no actual evidence that anyone who joins the suit is actually a victim of OLG fraud.

There are things that could be done to prevent this sort of corruption. Maybe a law that would disallow vendors and their families from participating in the lottery, just like when the SUN or the Toronto Star hold a contest, employees and family members and people associated with the sponsors of the contest are not allowed to play.

Using tax dollars (a billion of them) to compensate people who might not even have been affected, or to encourage people to buy more lottery tickets in order to receive these 'free' ones, is not a solution.

Much as I sympathize with those who feel they were cheated out of winnings, there has always been a way to ensure you'd be the guy to receive the money if your ticket won -- you write your name on the back.

canadianna

Garth wants Dion's job

Why does the Toronto Sun persist in giving yet another venue to that tiresome bore, Garth Turner?

Garth always seems to have so much time on his hands. He spends much of it thinking up clever barbs he must believe will pierce the heart of his arch-nemesis, Stephen Harper.

Sometimes I think Garth should pilfer the CityTV tag line: EVERYWHERE because you just can't get away from the guy.

The time-wasting exercise showcased by the Toronto Sun, both yesterday and today, is Garth's recent post: 'Sixty-ways-to-dis-Steve-Harper' or '60 proofs Harper is a mean guy, na-na-na-na-na' or some such other silliness.

Garth Turner already gets more attention than he deserves and here a newspaper gives him yet another forum to vent his bitter bile. His list seems to be the product of an obsessive mind. It's like he's a spurned boyfriend or something, unable to let go of his unreciprocated love. Creepy. The list must have taken him a while and one can just sense the pinching resentment that has Garth's shorts all bunched.

He's included things that haven't even happened yet (an election in 2007) and he's taken the liberty of predicting that the GST won't be cut by another cent while Harper is in office by already calling it a 'broken promise'.

At least a couple of his points are repeated, but reworded or augmented so the list will fill out the full 60 (one point for each week of Conservative governance). For example, he mentions income trusts at least three times, with a different take on why Harper's handling of them was wrong.

Many of the points on his list are either untrue, twisted or out of context, like point 41 where he says Harper vowed to dismantle the gun registry 'after (a) fatal shooting in Montreal with registered weapons.' As though Harper's plan to scrap the registry was in response to that tragedy.

Some of the points are unsubstantiated and others are simply unfair -- pointing out how much Jim Flaherty spent on skates? What business is that of Garth's, or mine? Is Garth going to give us a listing of his personal family expenditures?

Other points are correct, and are reasons to applaud Harper -- such as number 44 -- Garth being kicked out of the Tory caucus. And if Garth is still lamenting that, then perhaps he should re-think his Liberal credentials.

The real interesting post from Garth's blog is from today. I ventured over there, spurred on by this gory curiosity that happens whenever he's been overwhelmingly Garthly, and I found this rumination:

We may be entering the age of romantic notions. Voters, at least a lot of them I’d say, are hungry for a none-of-the-above alternative to politics as usual. It may manifest itself as it did Monday night in Quebec, or last November in the London by-election. It may take form as a new kind of leadership, practiced by a new kind of leader – who consults with people using today’s technologies and opens the doors and windows of Parliament as never before. It could be one of the parties willing to forego the mushy, centrist policies of something for everything, and launches a crusade. (. . .) The man or woman who can stride outside of the establishment one day, talk directly to the people and move them to consider achieving the improbable, the noble and the slightly untamed, may find the time is precisely right.

Gosh now, who would that striding, talking, improbable, noble and slightly untamed beast be?

Garth, surely you jest -- but Stephane Dion might want to start checking over his shoulder and making sure Garth feels loved in caucus, or else the Liberal leader might regret the day he yanked the thorn from this lion's paw and invited him to the table.

Number 44 on that list looks better every day.

canadianna

Threat? Interference? Blackmail?

These are some of the words being used to describe Harper's statement prior to the Quebec election that it is: "necessary to have a federalist government in Quebec" in order to proceed with promised reforms, such as dealing with the fiscal imbalance.

Should he have said it during the election campaign?

Why not?

Why pretend that if Quebec had elected a separatist party provincially, that the federal government should or would deal with that party in the same manner as with a federalist party?

Much of the problem around Quebec is the way we skirt around the issues. I don't like that Harper threw so much money at Quebec (and Ontario) at the expense of others -- but how does one take offense at honesty? The timing? Like Quebeckers aren't smart enough to realize that a strong vote for the Bloc in a federal election can be construed as a 'protest' and not an endorsement of separatism, whereas a strong PQ provincial vote is less likely to seem that way to the feds.

Harper stated a fact. Was he trying to 'influence' voters? Maybe, but I doubt it. Harper is aware that most Quebeckers are far more savvy about their politics than most people in the rest of the country. He wasn't telling them anything that they didn't already know.

canadianna

Don't complain

I don't know why some things rile me so much. It isn't that I don't expect to be challenged, but sometimes I'm struck by a statement so annoying, I have to respond.

A commenter on my YTV profanity post said:

Anonymous said...
Come on, please get a grip. We live in world where this is a part of everyday life. If you don't like it change the channel.

It's a harmless statement all in all, and typical of those with a laissez-faire attitude towards life and child-rearing.

Words like 'pimp' might be part Anonymous' everyday life -- but not mine. Yet somehow he believes that I must let YTV make it part of my kids' daily lives, or tune out.

Why is questioning the emerging status quo against the sensibilities of so many people? Whether it's using bad language on television or changing the meaning of the word marriage, or questioning the morality of abortion on demand, I always feel like liberals in this society are not simply telling me that they disagree with me, but that I should shut up.

If CTV had used the word 'pimp' in its advertising, I wouldn't have complained. When the Toronto Star ran that 'Pimp Your Kitchen' contest, I rolled my eyes and though 'yuck' -- but Anonymous is not telling me to ignore a word being used on a mainstream station intended for adult audiences, but rather YTV, a station that promotes itself as child-centred with programming directed at, geared to, prepared exclusively for -- children.

Maybe Anonymous thinks its okay that the lines between the ages are blurring, but I think kids should be kids.

Change the channel? Why, because some people are too lazy to think? Because hip young programmers and apparently Anonymous think that the word 'pimp' sounds okay coming out of the mouths of toddlers?

No -- this is not a censorship issue where programming is suitable for the age level and a viewer is being overly sensitive -- this is a case of a television stations pushing the boundaries of good taste. We're not talking about the word 'fart' or some other such childish word -- we're talking about a word that doesn't belong in the realm of childhood.
It strikes me funny that Anonymous took the time to stop and disagree with my position when he could have simply left the page -- odd that. Given his advice to me to 'change the channel', you'd wonder why he bothered to comment when he could simply have moved on.

The hypocrisy of some people is astounding.

canadianna

Update on YTV 'profanity'

On February 27, I wrote about an ad for a new YTV - affiliated website. The ad in question used the words "Pimp up your crib" to describe some of the activities available on the site.

The same day, I wrote to Corus Entertainment about my concern that this phrase was being used to promote a children's website and being aired during programs geared towards younger kids. Here is the reply I received today:

Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion with us. We are always interested in hearing from our viewers and all feedback is important to us.

We are sorry to hear that some of the dialogue in a current promotion for The Big Rip is disappointing for you. We can assure you that we take our responsibility as a broadcaster very seriously and regularly make internal judgments regarding appropriate content. As primarily as children’s network, we are acutely aware of our obligation to use appropriate language while staying relevant and appealing to our audience. In this context, the phrase in question is intended as slang for ‘decorate’ or ‘upgrade’ and has slipped into common usage without being considered profane or irreverent.

That being said, we have shared your concerns with the appropriate departments for their consideration during the on-going planning of our network. It is through such communication that we are able to provide quality programming for Canadian youth and their families.

Regards,

YTV Viewer Relations Department

Although I am ambivalent as to the message, I am pleased that they had the courtesy to reply and to forward my concern to the appropriate department.

I haven't noticed the ads playing lately, but I hope they will reconsider their position that 'pimp' is no longer considered profane.

Regardless of what they might think, using the word pimp in its 'new' context is indeed 'irreverent' - as it is deficient in respectfulness. Whether a person is 8 or 80, 'pimp' is certainly not a term one would use when speaking in polite company or if one hoped to be seen as courteous and well-mannered. And while it is not profane in the literal sense, it is a vulgar term used by those who are crass, or who want to be perceived as unconventional and daring.

Language evolves, but that doesn't mean we must always bring things down to the basest level, especially when kids are involved. When instructing children, we should be attempting to elevate their minds, rather than corrupt. An ugly word like 'pimp' doesn't deserve to be part of the childhood lexicon. Although it has slipped into common usage to mean 'redecorate', it retains its repulsive edge. While it might be acceptable for teens, and fully suitable for adults in whatever context they might want to use it, its traditional meaning is unfortunate enough that it should be kept out of programming and advertising directed toward children.

Children might use 'pimp' in the schoolyard with their friends, or they might even hear it if they are allowed to watch MTV, but when children's programmers start to use that kind of language in an attempt to 'speak on their level' they are teaching kids that kind of language is acceptable in the family room. Call me old fashioned, but 'pimp' in any of its meanings is not a word I want used at my dinner table. Maybe YTV should use a thesaurus:

jazz up, deck out, tune, dude out, dog up, retool etc.

. . . all words/phrases that mean redecorate and are outside of the conventional meanings of the actual words. Each is more modern and more fun than the simple 'redecorate' and none could be construed as offensive by anyone.

Creative people in children's television should be able to think above the banality of the MTVesque shock-value idioms being created and used to allow teens to feel more savvy and clever than their parents. At least, one would hope.

canadianna

Soccer and the headscarf

What difference does it make if an eleven year old girl plays soccer wearing a headscarf?

Those who suggest it has something to do with 'safety' are blowing smoke. It doesn't.

This whole incident has to do with conformity. Those who've come down against the headscarf in this case are expecting this kid and her family to conform to 'Canadian' norms. They aren't interested in whether the headscarf interferes with the girl's play or if by some weird fluke it could become part of some entangled mess that could strangle her or limit her vision -- because neither is a reasonable concern. The game is being supervised and watched by dozens of adults. A yank on the headscarf is no more likely to injure or kill this girl than a tug to the hair, and one would have to have an expansive imagination to concoct a scenario where a headscarf could hurt someone other than the wearer. Where is the risk?

Rules are rules. Nonsense.

Rules are bent and changed all the time to fit in with the reasonable expectations of participants. Prior to this incident there was no rule about headscarves. There was a rule about jewelry, which makes sense. Jewelry is optional and decorative. It is not generally part of a religious tradition or custom. It could be ripped off during play causing harm to the wearer or it could cut another player coming in contact. Injuries are unlikely, but because there is a certain potential for harm when a person wears a ring, bracelet, earrings or a necklace while playing sports, the rule is not unreasonable. This non-rule regarding headscarves has only become an issue because the ref decided to make it one. Yes, I am aware he is Muslim, but that doesn't preclude him from being a jerk on a power trip.

I do wonder if the headscarf is so important to this girl for religious reasons, is she wearing long pants or something to cover her legs, but either way, I still believe a ban on headscarves is unfair.

I also wonder if Sikh boys or men have faced this problem? Anyone know?

canadianna

Bragging Moment -- Canada Games 2007

My 17 year-old niece Lisa will be playing hockey in Whitehorse next week. Lisa is a goalie for Team Ontario and is competing at the Canada Games.

The Canada Games, you ask?

You'd be forgiven if you didn't know that Canada's elite young athletes are up North representing their provinces in speed skating, skiing, hockey etc. If it weren't for my niece, I wouldn't even know the Canada Games exist, which makes me wonder why the government of Canada and the provincial governments aren't doing more to promote this showcase of young talent.

This would be a perfect opportunity to show how 'ParticipAction' can pay off -- or they could just promote the Canada Games because these kids have worked so hard to get where they are in the sports they love. The provinces these young people represent would do well to show their pride before and during the competitions -- not just in the case of a win.

I've often wondered where our Olympic competitors come from -- what route did they take to make it to the top of their sport? Here is one of the stepping stones to the Olympic dream and how many Canadians will know about it, let alone watch? Why is there so little in the news about these high achievers?

A lot of these kids are like my niece. They have dedicated their lives to pursuing their dream and yet they also excel academically and personally. Lisa, for example has an average above 90% in her final year of high school and is heading to the US on a full hockey scholarship next year. We hear so much about the bad kids -- I'd like to hear someone in the media or government talking a bit about these good ones.

Tune in if you can. The Games started on the 23rd and go right through until March 10th. TSN is showing some of the events and so is APTN.

Lisa and Team Ontario play Newfoundland on Monday, and PEI on Wednesday. I can't see that either game will be televised in the Toronto area (I've checked both TSN and APTN listings for next week and they're showing other games, but not Ontario). If anyone notices listings for Ontario Women's Hockey, please post in the comment section.

These kids deserve the glory these couple of weeks will bring. They represent our hope for Canada's future. They are ambitious, talented and committed young people, and you shouldn't have to be a family member to know that they're out there, working hard and representing their home provinces. Canada should be watching.

Go Ontario!

canadianna
2nd EDIT: See Sheila Copps in today's SUN.

EDIT: candace has pointed out that I had missed some coverage -- and apparently the government was well represented at the games (apologies).
I guess the fact is that the coverage is there, but it's one of those things you don't see unless you're looking for it. I've only been flipping through the papers lately, and often I have only one ear on the TV during the news -- assuming most people are like me, they might not be aware.
Glad to see that it isn't as buried as I thought. Thanks Candace for the heads up.

"Pimp up your crib"

Does that kind of language offend you? It really bothers me.

My ten year old is off school with a cold. Last week he told me about an ad he'd seen where they used those words. I told him that he must have misheard. This morning when it came on, he called me in and I heard it myself.

Those words were being used to advertise a new website for kids called "The Big Rip". I've been to the site and it seems harmless enough. Kids play games, post videos and chat. What bothers me is that this was being advertised using those words 'pimp your crib' during Jacob Two-Two on YTV. He was watching YTVWest between 9:30 and 10 a.m. EST, which means the show aired between 6:30 and 7 a.m. here on YTVEast .

That show and the website are geared toward kids 8 to 12, but no doubt younger kids are watching too. Am I alone in thinking that this kind of language is vulgar and inappropriate, despite its recent emergence in popular culture and media?

When we blur the lines that delineate child and teen or between teen and adult, we are saying that what is acceptable for one group is acceptable for all.

Language matters. Words can elevate or corrupt. They can inspire or degrade. That's why the way we speak to and around children is so important. Perhaps ripping a foul word and modifying its meaning in order to make use of it commonly, serves a purpose amongst the younger generation -- maybe it makes them feel edgy and shocking. Maybe they need that to validate their feelings or some other such angst-ridden thing. Or maybe it's an juvenile form of rebellion. In most societies when the young rebel, the older generation looks at them and thinks 'they'll learn' but our boomer TV execs and media seem to get swept up in the excitement of saying dirty words and actually expand their usage -- the Toronto Star recently had a contest 'Pimp My Kitchen'.

"Pimp" might have a dual meaning these days, but most dictionaries I can find maintain the commonly understood definition. Either way, it doesn't belong on a TV station geared to kids. Let the teens and twenty somethings have those ugly words and keep them on their MTV -- but when it comes to YTV and young kids, they should keep it clean.

email YTV via Corus Entertainment.

canadianna

Throwing good money . . .

Prior to the vote on Kyoto, the Liberals issued a call to action to thwart Stephen Harper and the nefarious Global Warming Deniers (GWD):

Our goal with this vote is to force the Conservative party − a group of long-standing global warming deniers in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence − to recognize that this is a global crisis that requires a global response – with Canada taking the lead. This is the vision Stéphane Dion has worked hard to promote.

It would seem that Dion has worked harder at promoting the vision than he ever did taking action.

I don't deny global warming. It might be happening; I just don't know -- but I do know that even if the world is heating up, that Kyoto is not the answer.

The left has managed to link Kyoto with a cure for global warming. Rather than debate the science, critics are more and more apt to point out that if mankind is contributing to the problem through industry, then with or without this bizarre treaty, the world's temperature will continue to rise because the treaty doesn't address global warming, but rather the global economy.

But of course, that inconvenient truth is lost on those who use buzzwords and sound-bites to advance a flawed agenda. Rather than taking a step back and ascertaining realistic fixes for the environment, they bleat on about conservatives not 'caring' about the environment. They pretend that if we would obey the unrealistic and ruinous targets imposed by this piece of paper, that countries like China, India and Pakistan would suddenly jump on the CO2 reduction bandwagon.

What incentive does Kyoto provide for any of the developing nations to curb their CO2 emissions? None. In fact, there is a financial incentive to ignore any growth in their own CO2 production. Should we fail to reach our targets, we must pay them -- and yet there are no guarantees that the money we use to buy these credits will be spent on a developing nation's environmental action plan. There are no enforceable strings on this bonus cash -- so, not only can developed nations continue to pollute so long as they buy credits, no environmental demands are made on developing nations. Exactly how does this equate to a reduction in CO2?

Of course, the environment isn't really the issue:

The Conservatives have amassed a multi-million dollar war chest which they intend to use to twist and distort the truth. Please consider a donation of $100 today and help our Liberal Team speak up for all Canadians on issues like the environment, and also ensure we are able to take our positive message door-to-door in the next election campaign.

So while twisting and distorting the truth to suit their own ends, the Liberals beg their faithful to reward their party's long-standing inertia on this file. Good stewards don't throw money at a failing endeavour. Maybe that's why the Liberals are broke.

canadianna