Fee education

Anyone who has a kid in school knows that the first week is fee week.

Amongst other fees, it used to be for the primary school kids they'd 'suggest' you buy a $5 'agenda' for your kid to help him keep track of homework, tests etc. Then, it became mandatory for you to buy your kid a $5 agenda. Now it is both mandatory and $10. That's a $5 increase in a matter of about four or five years for something that has no educational benefit.

They say it's necessary. Fine. Your kid has to write down assignments, tests, trips etc. -- well what's wrong with one of those blank notebooks from the dollar store? Or one of those calendars with the big squares? (Also available at the dollar store.)

But no, the schools prefer the printed agenda -- that way it has a personal greeting from the child's very own Principal and from the school board. It has the individual school's code of conduct, lunch schedule, floor map, song, cheer, bullying policy, internet policy, etc. All of this information is available elsewhere and isn't used by your average K-8 student, but it sure makes the agenda seem invaluable.

Someone is making a lot of money from this. I don't know who got the idea to make these silly wastes of paper but they must be a millionaire by now. Selling an idea like this to multiple school boards and then supplying the product --wow. Clever. And there has to be a different one every year so the calendar will be correct and the Principal's message will be fresh.

There is nothing wrong with kids taking responsibility for their assignments and upcoming events, but surely it doesn't require a $10 coil bound, holographic covered, multi-coloured, over-paged, glorified datebook to do it.

And then there's high school fees. An agenda, student ID and yearbook are all compulsory at my older kids' school. $40 per kid. If you don't have the forty dollars on the first day, they don't give your schedule.

How's that for FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION -- Dalton? TDSB? Anyone?

canadianna

Revised does not equal 'Revisionist'

In today's National Post, historian Randall Hansen takes issue with the War Museum's recent decision to replace the controversial plaque about Bomber Command. Yesterday the National Post quotes Randall as calling the decision 'craven' and 'appalling'. He went so far as to say that attempts to deny the plaque's accuracy are 'absolutely Stalinist' and 'Orwellian'.

I've already posted my opinion on the plaque, here and here.

The plaque in question is poorly worded because it purports to be a neutral commentary on Bomber Command but then goes on to draw a negative conclusion about the Canadian air campaign against Germany. The plaque draws a reader's attention to the 'enduring controversy' regarding 'the morality and value' of the air strikes and then wraps up by drawing the conclusion that the raids were ineffective except in their slaughter of innocent civilians. Hansen might believe the conclusion is factual, but then why does the plaque pretend the issue is controversial if this conclusion is unequivocally true?

Hansen is an historian who has written about this period in our history. He comes to the issue armed with research and an agenda -- to propagate ideas he set out in his book. He sneers at Cliff Chadderton who has taken offense at both the content and the tone of the plaque. Hansen accuses him of not having read, or having read his history poorly.

What Mr. Hansen fails to realize is that as clever and well-read as he is and with all that education and research under his belt, the War Museum is not meant for him. It wasn't built to satisfy his interpretation of the air war and, he's right, it wasn't meant to assuage the souls of Vets. It was meant to inform.

The plaque in question does not inform -- it leads. It wording of the plaque leads the reader to the one conclusion -- that despite their actions being militarily ineffective, Canadians continued to bomb the hell out of poor innocent German civilians, killing hundreds of thousands of them. It gives no indication of Bomber Command's losses or limitations -- it simply leaves the modern reader with the impression that it was unnecessary and wrong -- not controversial -- unnecessary and wrong.

A school kid reading the plaque -- which, let's be clear, is the defining statement of the display -- would have no grasp of the total war, no sense of the intractability of the enemy, little understanding of the limitations of the technology of the day, small idea of the risks of pinpoint bombing, and minimal awareness of the huge Bomber Command losses (51 out of every 100 airmen were killed in action). That school kid might move further along in the display and see some of these facts mentioned somewhere -- but not in relation to the destruction and death described in the centrepiece plaque. This kid is likely to conclude that Bomber Command was wantonly murderous. What else could someone who is not an expert think after reading that plaque?

Hansen uses words like 'craven', 'appalling', 'Stalinist' and 'Orwellian' to describe the veterans' attempts to have the plaque reworded. He uses hyperbole to defend something so small and insignificant as an opinion -- yet he doesn't understand why the veterans are compelled to defend their honour, their service and their sacrifices for this country. It's academic tunnel vision.

canadianna

Jerusalem, where?

A Federal appeals court has determined that when the holder of a Canadian passport was born in the city of Jerusalem, that the omission of the country name 'Israel' is acceptable and not a violation of the charter rights of said holder.

The petitioner argued that recognizing Israel as the country of his birth is part of religious identity. The National Post says that the appeals court determined:

The decision upholds a 2006 court ruling that Canada's passport policy is neither discriminatory nor a violation of religious freedom, despite the fact that Israel is the sole exception to a practice of allowing passport applicants to list their birth country of choice when dealing with cities in disputed territories.

Not discriminatory when Israel is the lone exception? It isn't only a discriminatory policy, it's cowardly.

Disputed territory or not, even under 1948 rules, part of Jerusalem was part of Israel. Why does the Canadian government persist in this myth that Jerusalem in its totality is a city that belongs not to Israelis, but to no one or to everyone?

While I don't believe this young man's religious rights are being violated, reality is being evaded. Why make a document inaccurate in order to appease the sensibilities of Palestinians, who obviously cannot be appeased by greater concessions than even that?

My Israel includes Jerusalem.

canadianna

Either you do, or you don't

Toronto's decision to remove the "Support Our Troops" ribbon from EMS vehicles actually clarifies something for me. Council is afraid that supporting our troops might be confused by the public with supporting the war in Afghanistan. Heaven forbid that someone get the idea that if you support the person performing a particular job, that you also support the job they're working at.

Often we'll hear people like Jack Layton and David Miller say that they support the troops, but not the war in Afghanistan as though the two ideas were not inconsistent. Maybe it's time we stop pretending to believe them. It's one thing to have questions about the mission and how it's progressing, its end date etc. but these are guys who are ALWAYS anti-war and have always been against any military action that was not exclusively a peace-keeping mission.

I'm sorry -- but I find it difficult to believe that you can 'support the troops' but not the war. It seems like one of those mantras people recite because they don't want to be seen as being as cruel as Americans were to their soldiers during Vietnam.

How can you support the troops if you don't support their work?

Can you support Wade Belak in a hockey fight if you are against hockey fights on principle?

Can you support the Pope if you are against Roman Catholicism and what it stands for?

Can you support abortionists if you are anti-abortion?

It doesn't mean to say that anyone wishes ill-will toward Belak, the Pope, abortionists, or the troops if they don't support their work, but it stands to reason you can't support the employee if you are morally opposed to his job. You might not want him to die, but that's not the same as 'supporting' him.

Say it Mr. Mayor, Mr. Layton and all of you who have pretended to support the troops -- you think war is wrong. And if this war is wrong, so are the people who are participating in it. Just own up.

As for me, I support our troops.

canadianna

President of the OPG: Don't believe anything you read

Harper has been warned.

Warren Kinsella writes today about the ongoing feud between the press and Stephen Harper, wherein Harper has limited access and put restrictions on questioning. Kinsella notes that it isn't just The Toronto Star sniping, but guys like Don Martin of the right-leaning National Post who are fed up with Harper's 'disdain' for the press. He quotes Richard Brennan, new president of the Ottawa Press Gallery, as saying:

"There's not a lot we can do, except push back, and that's what he is going to find," said Brennan. "We are pushing back."

Kinsella gives all rounds up to this point to Harper, saying that "the Prime Minister has beaten the national media at every turn. They have been forced to play the game by his rules." But goes on to say:

Sometime soon, the Prime Minister is going to find the news media "pushing back" at a time when he is most vulnerable. Namely, during the election campaign.

Already, it is arguable that this push-back campaign is producing dividends: However much Harper moves to the centre, offering up big-spending policies for latte-sipping urbanites and ruthlessly muzzling the red-necked crazies in his backbench--he gets no credit for it. He and his party remain ahead of the Liberals, marginally, but they are also far from their lusted-after majority. So they lick their wounds, and wonder why.

So, rather than reporting the news fairly and accurately, the president of the Ottawa Press Gallery seems to be advocating that the media selectively report, thereby attempting to shape the opinons of the nation, rather than do what they are supposed to do, inform the nation and allow us to form our own opinions.

This concept is coming from the guy the OPG chose to represent them -- Instead of just sucking it up and giving us the news, he'd rather the press gallery 'push back,' and it would seem as Kinsella notes, they'll use 'omission' as a tactic.

How is it that the head guy believes that OPG's petty grievances are more important than their responsibility to Canadians to tell things as they are? Do they think that they are somehow 'representing' us up there in that rarefied world of Ottawa bars and backrooms -- especially when they decide they're going to play kingmaker if the PMO won't play ball their way?

Is there any wonder why Harper doesn't trust them?

canadianna

Canadian Idiot

I'm a fan of clever television ads. Sometimes I even get sucked into trying a product because their advertising is good or I'll find myself humming along with their catchy tunes.

Some ads I hate though -- like the Casino Rama ones where no one knows how to have fun until they've visited the casino "Thank you, Casino Rama, for showing us how to have fun." Because without Casino Rama and gambling in our lives, we'd be too stupid to realize that we should cheer if our team scores or if we win an amazing trip in a radio contest.

One new ad has really caught my ire. David Suzuki has managed to both offend and enlighten in his new television ad, aimed at having us plebs reduce our energy consumption. It could have been a cute idea and its premise is a good one -- regardless of whether we are 'deniers', 'skeptics' or 'true believers' in climate change, it makes sense to conserve energy and try to improve environmental conditions in every aspect of our lives, if only to make breathing easier.

In this new ad called "The Basement", Suzuki and his enviro-idiots use 'Bob', a guy so ignorant that he keeps a huge fridge running to cool four beers, then protests when Suzuki says it's a waste. 'But I'm using it' comes the doltish plea. But when Suzuki awakens Bob to the savings potential -- and the prospect of more beer money -- not only does Bob unplug the fridge -- he races through his house, pushes past his family members and proceeds to unplug every energy using device, even those in use. All for more and more and more beer. Just a regular guy, that Bob.

Thank you David Suzuki, for letting us into your head to see what you and your pals really think of us. Idiot.

canadianna

A picture's worth . . . ?

Regardless of political affiliation, most people say they support our troops. Personal feelings about war in general and the war in Afghanistan in particular, don't seem to factor in.

Why is it then, that Liberals are still bent on portraying our military as ominous in an effort to malign the Conservatives?

A photograph of tanks at the ready, combined with the word 'Conservative' seems to be a favourite stunt of the Liberal Party's communications staff. This image of Light Armoured Vehicles from the Liberal website, is reminiscent of the Liberal television ad yanked during the election last year. Apparently they thought they'd dust off the idea and give it new life in a different format. With so many other aspects of the Afghan mission to choose from, they have chosen one that could be seen as the most menacing. No faces, just an overpowering machine. Subtlety is obviously not their forte.

The NDP doesn't like the Conservatives any more than the Liberals do, and they like the war in Afghanistan even less. Yet the NDP website doesn't misuse the military to make a point about Harper. Their criticism of Harper's Afghan vision and visit is linked to by a photo of soldiers on the ground, with Afghan children in the background. It appears unstaged and seems unthreatening -- no attempt to draw deleterious connections or conclusions.
Maybe I'm being fussy here, but photographs are used to evoke emotion. You'd think that the Liberals would have learned their lesson and if they want to assail Harper, they'd stop using our military as their weapon of choice.

*** I've edited this post because commenters corrected me (thanks) --The photo is not of tanks, but LAVs (Light Armoured Vehicles). The visual holds the same connotation IMO.

canadianna

Conversion Tools

Who knew that kidnapping would become an instrument of religious conversion? Imagine if they could do this on a grand scale? Too bad they didn't discover this tactic before they got the taste for blood.

One wonders which side Ms Ridley is rooting for, and should the Taliban prevail, does she plan to move to Afghanistan don the burqua and shut up?

I don't ask this because I believe she should be quiet. The woman has the right to speak -- here. It's simply an observation about the 'courteous' society whose company she enjoyed well enough to keep.

Sometimes you just have to shake your head.

** Update -- Darcey's written on this today too.

canadianna

A matter of conscience

Via Red Tory, I came across this article by Scott Taylor about the war in Afghanistan. It wasn't the article that interested me really, it was RT's assessment of it. He quotes heavily from the column which describes unspeakable methods of murder and violence used by a former Afghan warlord who is working against the Taliban and who in doing so, is on the same 'side' as Canada.

RT is shocked:

And those are the “good guys” on whose behalf we are fighting!

Is that what liberals really think? That we're fighting on 'behalf' of those monsters? Linear thinking, indeed. I rather doubt that's how our soldiers see it, but then they aren't limited by piety and an insular reality.

It would seem to me that we're tolerating those monsters in order to fight on behalf of a beleaguered and oppressed civilian population.

Red Tory goes on to say:

Quaint notions of “peacekeeping” in such an environment are clearly misplaced.

We were never in Afghanistan to 'peace keep'. This is a war. It was never sold as a peacekeeping mission, even by the Liberals. This 'quaint notion' is only held by those who don't keep up on current events. That any of this would come as a shock, is what's shocking.

The trouble with articles like this, and more so the interpretations of people like Red Tory, is the not-so-subtle suggestion that Canadian troops are complicit in torture. They make the black and white connection between our guys handing over detainees and allegations of torture by detainees -- as though the allegations are fact, and as though abuse of detainees captured by anyone other than Canadians is simply hunky-dory. The premature and selective outrage is mind-boggling.

The 'guilt by association' nonsense denigrates our soldiers, which is a concern I've written about before. But beyond that, it pointedly excuses and ignores Western indifference during the years when the Taliban perpetrated all manner of abuse on its own dissenting citizens and particularly its systemic victimization of women, all of which took place long before this war. It also ignores the potential for a return to this regime should we pull out before stability is firmly established.

In the minds of our liberal elites, maybe that torture was okay. It wasn't our people. We knew, yet did nothing to intervene, but because we weren't there -- our hands are clean. Despite news reports coming out of Afghanistan during that time period -- we could turn a blind eye, but have a clear conscience because it wasn't our country and it wasn't our women and it had nothing to do with us.

No, I know. Human rights abuses by the Taliban are not why we went there, but now that we are there, isn't it fortunate for all those women who would otherwise be assassinated in soccer stadiums for simple indiscretions? Isn't it fortunate for all those little girls getting an education for the first time?

The holocaust is not why we entered WWII. Had it remained an internal German problem -- had there been extermination of just Germany's Jews -- we would have allowed it. We would have said that it was not our place to intervene in the domestic affairs of an autonomous country. Had Germany never crossed its own borders, WWII wouldn't have happened. The Allies could stayed at home, witnessed the barbarity and had a clear conscience because we wouldn't have been complicit in the deaths of Jews. That's obscene, but it's the logic of the Canadian left on this one.

Over at RT's they're questioning the financial cost of staying in Afghanistan, and yet they pretend that humanity is the exclusive domain of the left. Humanity is demanding that we stay and finish the job and that the preventing the suffering of civilians, and elevating their potential for a renewed society is our primary concern. It might not be why we went, but it's why we should stay.

We could leave Afghanistan now and watch from a safe distance, and we might even allow ourselves to believe that our hands remain pristine. We could smugly shrug as innocent people are tortured and murdered by their countrymen, while we stay safe in our liberal dreamworld where we'd be comforted by the 'quaint notion' that at least we aren't violating the human rights of captured Taliban fighters.

We can't solve all the world's ills or rescue all of its vulnerable people, but if we were to abandon Afghanistan now, there is no question that we would be complicit in the return to disorder which allowed the Taliban to victimize its most defenseless citizens.

canadianna

Someone's choking

And I guess that would be us Leaf fans.

Nevertheless, there's no reason for us to lose faith in Ottawa's potential to blow it in the finals. After all, they came by this win on a cheat. If that rascal Comrie hadn't pulled that stunt and knocked the net off with about three minutes to go, the game wouldn't have gone to overtime. Buffalo would have won it right then and there.

I'm hoping for an Anaheim/Ottawa cup final and an Anaheim cup win.

For those of you who think I'm anti-Canadian for not cheering for the only Canadian team left in the playoffs:

Detroit has 8 Canadians
Ottawa has 14 Canadians
Anaheim has 19 Canadians

Should Detroit make it to the finals rather than Anaheim, I will justify cheering for Detroit because of my visceral hatred of the Senators.

At this time of year, it's less about being a Leaf fan and more about being an Ottawa hater. Yes, they have great players -- probably the best. But they also dive and cheat. Don't you be telling me that the Leafs do those things. I can't hear you.

I don't know what it is about Ottawa that makes my blood boil when they win. It isn't that I hate the city -- Ottawa. I've never even been there.

Maybe it's the red. Liberals are red. That must be it -- because there's just no way that it's sour grapes.

canadianna

* Edited for correct spelling of that rascal Mike Comrie's name.

What we have here

is a failure to communicate.

The shocking news isn't that the Conservatives have strategies to get their way or to manipulate committees -- it's that they would write a playbook -- and then allow it to become public. That's careless and stupid.

The methods described by Don Martin in today's National Post are nothing new, nor or they exclusive to the Conservatives. They've been employed to great effect by other parties when the opportunity or need arose. The difference is this time is there is a blueprint, so it looks calculating and manipulative.

Ordinary citizens are led to believe that we can expect our politicians to be 'above partisan politics'. We are duped into thinking that they should be above partisanship -- but the fact is, politics is an adversarial business. Each party has priorities and plans, and much as we'd like to believe otherwise, consensus is not always possible.

The Shane Doan incident, the stalled committees and the Kyoto implementation plan are excellent examples. There should have been no concensus about calling on Hockey Canada, and there can be no consensus on the Afghan detainee issue, the Court Challenges Program or Kyoto. The other parties are fairly solid in their positions on these and so long as the Conservatives have a minority in the House and on committees, it stands to reason that government is going to try to block ideas and issues that potentially go against national security, against their principles and against all reason. While compromise is often necessary, conversion would be required to support the opposition ideas in these areas.

Of course you can't govern like a majority when you're in a minority parliament. The Conservatives had to expect the Opposition would oppose -- that's their job. At least some of the obstacles to success on committees have nothing to do with the opposition working against the government and everything to do with the government's lack of success selling its position to the public.

Take the Shane Doan/Official Languages Committee fiasco.

The Conservatives had a minority on the committee. The motion to call Hockey Canada in front of the committee would have passed without their support. Chong's lame explanation that they were 'giving Hockey Canada a chance to tell their side.' is just asinine. If Hockey Canada doesn't need to justify to parliament its choice of Captain-- why would the Conservatives vote for the motion, when a 'yes' vote gives credence to the notion that parliament has a right to challenge the decisions of Hockey Canada?

I have no doubt that the Conservatives were not in favour of recalling Shane Doan or of hauling Rob Nicholson in for grilling -- but rather than bravely voting against the motion, or even meekly abstaining, they voted in favour of the farce and allowed themselves to be painted with the same brush as the other committee members who were pushing for Doan's ouster and disparaging his character.

That is bad strategy.

As for the Afghan detainee thing --- why try to hide mistakes? When you own up, people respect you. When you obfuscate, they know. Where is the upside in lying? Canadians can understand that it takes time to rectify some problems, but they don't understand why it's so hard to admit to errors and to the lag-time in correcting your errors. If you're up front about your mistakes head on, the issue dies. If you try to deny, you'll be caught and that becomes the story.

Bad strategy.

With the Court Challenges Program --- there is reasonable justification for shutting this program down, but what about a grandfathering clause, allowing cases already in the system to proceed? Or actually explaining (without a sneer that says anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot) why the program isn't necessary.

And the Kyoto Implementation bill -- Given the circumstances around the time this was first presented, they could have fought an election on that issue and won. They missed a golden window of opportunity they won't get back.

That's bad strategy.

If the Conservatives are losing ground, it's because they are losing touch with the people. Not just their 'base', but the people.

We don't care about committee procedures or who's the Chair -- we just want to know that our government is doing the right thing and when they don't, that they've got the fortitude to admit it and take the heat.

You've still got time before the session ends. Show some character.

canadianna

Arabic immersion?

Why don't we try to get all of our kids to learn to speak and read proper English first?

The Windsor Public School Board has decided to offer Arabic 'immersion' classes. From the tone of the article, this doesn't sound like the taxpayer funded 'Heritage Languages' program here in Toronto, where the TDSB pays for Cantonese, Farsi or other foreign language classes, usually on Saturdays. This sounds like the Board intends to offer regular school day education, in Arabic.

Nice precedent, don't you think?

Surely it makes more sense to fund more programs and include more participants in classes that would facilitate the learning of one of our two OFFICIAL languages.

Apparently the experts don't think so. They say that kids 'literate in their first language are more adept at acquiring English or French.' and that 'if children of immigrants do not feel alienated from their family's language and culture, they adapt most readily to Canadian culture and values.'

Really? I would have thought being immersed in English would help you to learn English, and that participating fully in Canadian culture would help establish and cultivate Canadian values. Silly me. Better to ghettoize and then when they're ready, let them mix.

Oh, I know. These kids will be inside public schools, ostensibly learning the same curriculum and participating fully in school life, but don't imagine for a moment that there won't be two solitudes within those schools. If you have kids in Special Ed., you'll know what I mean.

Rather than funding another expensive social experiment with our school systems, why don't we just admit that we haven't managed our English as a Second Language programs effectively. ESL in the public school system in Toronto is a joke, and I doubt it's much better in Windsor. Here in TO, kids whose first language is not English, but who were born in Canada, aren't allowed to participate. They speak their parents' mother-tongue at home and are expected to just 'pick up' English in the school yard I guess. The program ends around Grade 3 with limited support in the higher grades. And Windsor wants to spend money teaching kids in a foreign language? This is another stupid idea that will find its way to Toronto no doubt.

Many Ontarians are keen throw out our heritage and to stop public funding of Catholic schools because it's 'unfair' and 'too expensive' and here is the Windsor School Board trying to justify Arabic immersion. In some areas of Scarborough more than 60% of kids don't speak English as a first language -- what should we do for them? There are several different language groups here and English is the minority. Maybe we should create several learning solitudes. Or maybe we should only fund the language groups where numbers allow, regardless of the language. In some places, that would mean both English and French are out.

The answer to integrating people into Canadian life isn't to educate immigrant kids in their native language. Doing so can't possibly advance their participation in community life -- unless we plan for them to stay within an exclusively Arabic-speaking community.

canadianna

In case there was any doubt

Yesterday in the comment section here and at Dust my Broom, stageleft questioned the authenticity of the email I received from Garth Turner on Monday. He thought the actual email address sounded iffy because it's unlike any parliamentary email address he'd seen before.

I suggested he should send a message, which he said he did. He promised to get in touch if he heard back. I still haven't heard from stageleft again, but no matter. Soon after, one of my kids decided to send an email to TurneG9@parl.gc.ca and she received a reply almost immediately.

Here is the response. I have blocked out my daughter's email address, but other than that it's as it was received:

As for the forgiveness offered by "Garth Turner" in the comments section yesterday:

I forgive you. Now you need to take some lessons in sarcasm.

Garth

The profile links to nothing, but given that the comment ended with a slam, I figure it's legit. Phew!

canadianna

An open letter to Garth Turner

This weekend, I committed a blogging sin and now I am compelled to repent.

While visiting The Prairie Wrangler I made an unsupported allegation about Garth Turner, without the obligatory qualifier "I believe". I am deeply ashamed for this omission and am publicly withdrawing my accusation.

Over this past fifteen months since Garth began making such an (alleged) ass of himself that I actually noticed his existence, I have written about him many times. In those posts, I suggested (among other things) that Garth is:

alienating, arrogant, a blabbermouth, a bore, disloyal, divisive, gossipy, idiotic, indiscreet, malicious, nasty, petulant, self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, smug, spiteful, whiny, vengeful . . . you get the picture.

But this time I went too far. I accused Garth of (prepare yourselves) . . . comment fraud.

The following email was sent to me by Garth, warning of the dire repercussions if I did not provide proof (or I suppose -- if I didn't take it back):

I swear I thought a bolt of lightning might shoot through the computer screen given the biblical proportions of his threat. What a dramatic and ominous articulation of intentions. It's like he's made a covenant. Garth Turner vows to make me -- 'suffer the eternally discrediting consequences' of not submitting to his will. 'Suffer' is such a harsh word to use and rather ill-advised by an MP in these circumstances. Shocking that someone in Garth's position would be so reckless in his use of language. And who's he going to discredit me with? My readers? His readers? The government? My boss? God? If Garth has the ear of the Almighty . . . I shudder to think.

Garth's 'or else' blustering was a bit easier for my children to grasp, spending so much time with other kids as they do. They still recall the simple art of verbal sparring at the 'Am not! Are too!' level, which I've long since forgotten. My youngest daughter suggested I use her favourite retort: "make me!" but I certainly don't want to 'suffer the eternally discrediting consequences' he promised. I've seen what Garth has done to his own credibility -- there's just no telling what he'd do with someone else's if he got a hold of it.

My offending comment was an off-handed remark, really. It's probably inaccurate anyway, because like my kids said after they finished laughing -- other pathetic publicity-hounds like Charlie Sheen, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears have groupies -- why not Garth Turner?

When I first read his menacing email, I was so disturbed that I contemplated committing blogicide, but then I realized two things -- first, that I could feel better by going public, and second, that Garth had paid me a huge compliment by trying to intimidate me. By threatening to discredit me, The (allegedly) Honourable Garth Turner, was in fact saying that I am 'credible'. I blush! What flattery! And from such an unexpected source.

In the end, I make the following supplication:

I, canadianna, humbly repent and do earnestly beseech thee, most ridiculous MP, to forgive me my transgression against thee. Amen.

*** Note -- The above petition is made on the off-chance that Garth comes by his (alleged) God complex, legitimately.

Oh, and Garth -- I'm just a blogger and not an iconic one at that. I have a relatively small readership, no fancy titles, no prestigious office, no groupies. The only people I care to have 'credibility' with are my kids. They respect me. They scoff at you. I'm fine with that, thanks.

canadianna

A Veteran's trust

Our soldiers have to know that even long after they've finished their duties abroad, they and their families will be well served by our government. They put their lives on the line, and they hope that the people back home will support them --- not just their missions, but them. They need to be certain that the government will not turn its back on them or their families should they be disabled or should they die. It's a matter of trust.

Due to a clerical error at the Department of Veteran's Affairs, Annie MacKenzie didn't receive her husband's disability pension after he died in 1968. The Department insisted Melvin MacKenzie was not disabled, despite having in its possession, information that he was. Unfortunately, that information was ignored and then never transferred to computer. Mrs. MacKenzie was left to raise their six children on her own, without the financial assistance to which she was entitled.

The government doesn't dispute that they got it wrong for nearly 40 years, but Federal laws governing the Pension Act only allow for retroactive payments going back five years. The family is appealing to today's government to hand over the full amount to which Annie MacKenzie and her family were entitled.

It's shameful that governments can erase errors and ignore commitments, simply by legislating a time-limit clause. Mrs. MacKenzie and her family have been fighting for this pension since 1968. It isn't as though the family just discovered it was owing and are hoping for a windfall. These payments were due, and despite years of attempting to get Veteran's Affairs to rectify their error, nothing was done. No fault lies with the family, so why should they be penalized for a governmental failure?

How this case is handled will serve to show today's soldiers what they can expect from Veteran's Affairs in the future. If we want our troops serving in Afghanistan and elsewhere to have confidence that we support them, and will continue to support them when they come back home, showing respect for our WWII & Korea Vets and their widows would be a positive indicator.

Harper should step in and right this wrong, making the payout retroactive to when the mistake occurred.

canadianna