Imagine a million Liberal voters standing out in this heat, waiting to vote. Poor guys. Turns out it wasn't the Conservative ads that made them stay home from the polls--- Kinsella fired off another column -- it was nasty conservative tricksters placing late-night harassing phone calls from across the border to tell those Liberal voters that their polling stations had changed. I'm guessing they must still be standing at those wrong polling stations if those phone calls affected their ability to cast their ballot.
Warren, your first column suggested you lost because of nasty ads. Now you're saying you lost because of widespread, Conservative sanctioned, criminal activity. Pick one. Stick with it. Or --- face facts: Anyone who didn't bother going to the polls, didn't feel that passionate about ANY party.
I'm not saying voter suppression doesn't happen, but voter apathy is more prevalent and I'm guessing it's pretty prevalent amongst former Liberals who watched dozens of Chretien scandals, a lot of internal party bickering, endured Martin's ensuing scandals and then shook their heads at Dion's utter ineptitude but finally faced with Ignatieff pushing himself into the leadership role, they bailed.
You lost them by the numbers, election after election. Who to blame? Well, maybe the out of touch Liberal strategists. Warren?
You lost. Get over it. Move on.
canadianna
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Liberal voters too stupid to think: Warren Kinsella
Kinsella is picking scabs again and we've been warned: when the Liberals lose again in 2015 -- don't blame them -- it'll be the fault of the anti-democratic, mind controlling, subliminal suggesting of Stephen Harper and his pesky Conservative ad campaign. Trust Warren. He knows. He remembers.
Back in 2006, when Conservative ads confirmed what Canadians already knew, that Stephane Dion was NOT a leader --- did you know those Conservative ads suppressed the compelling urge of almost a million Liberal voters to go to the polls? Damn those Conservatives. How dare they point out the obvious and use it as part of their advertising message?
The Liberals of course would never stoop to the level of negative ads. But then again, maybe they didn't have to. Everyone knew that Stephen Harper had a secret agenda, and that a fundamental Christian leader like Stockwell Day must be an idiot, but not because of any ad campaign. While the Conservatives paid real money to put across their ideas to the voters, the Liberals had the media. Kinsella was being interviewed on CTV's morning show when he famously said:
Yes Warren, those two clever strategies should have you in the Spinner's Hall of Fame, but you know what? You can't live on past glory. Well, maybe YOU can because the SUN keeps giving you a voice, but face facts Warren, if the Liberals lose again in 2015, it'll be because people like you have nothing fresh to talk about. Where's your vision? Where are your ideas? So long as your mind is preoccupied, blaming everyone else for your own miserable failures, you'll never be able to kick off the dust and move on.
If Liberal voters choose not to come to the polls, it isn't because the Conservatives have suppressed their voting urge, it's because you Liberals have failed to motivate them.
canadianna
Back in 2006, when Conservative ads confirmed what Canadians already knew, that Stephane Dion was NOT a leader --- did you know those Conservative ads suppressed the compelling urge of almost a million Liberal voters to go to the polls? Damn those Conservatives. How dare they point out the obvious and use it as part of their advertising message?
The Liberals of course would never stoop to the level of negative ads. But then again, maybe they didn't have to. Everyone knew that Stephen Harper had a secret agenda, and that a fundamental Christian leader like Stockwell Day must be an idiot, but not because of any ad campaign. While the Conservatives paid real money to put across their ideas to the voters, the Liberals had the media. Kinsella was being interviewed on CTV's morning show when he famously said:
'Mr. Day has said . . . that dinosaurs walked the Earth with humans.' As he produced a Barney the dinosaur plush toy, Kinsella went on . . . 'I just want to say to Mr. Day that the Flintstones were not a documentary -- and the only dinosaur that walked with human beings recently was this one.'And in 2005 when prominent Liberals were still scrambling to keep Paul Martin on top of the Liberal heap, they started the *Stephen Harper secret agenda* game. All they had to do was say those words and the media (which Kinsella has recently suggested is heavily conservative) picked up the Liberal accusations and sneers and ran with them.
Yes Warren, those two clever strategies should have you in the Spinner's Hall of Fame, but you know what? You can't live on past glory. Well, maybe YOU can because the SUN keeps giving you a voice, but face facts Warren, if the Liberals lose again in 2015, it'll be because people like you have nothing fresh to talk about. Where's your vision? Where are your ideas? So long as your mind is preoccupied, blaming everyone else for your own miserable failures, you'll never be able to kick off the dust and move on.
If Liberal voters choose not to come to the polls, it isn't because the Conservatives have suppressed their voting urge, it's because you Liberals have failed to motivate them.
canadianna
Sunday, June 05, 2011
The page affair
Yes, the girl was wrong to do what she did. It was disrespectful, immature and just plain stupid. I said as much in a comment I made over at BC Blue.
My comment was less about her actions, than Dean's belief that she should never have been hired in the first place because of her *obvious biases*. Our exchange in the comment section is as follows:
Adults can separate their job from their politics when need be. This person has displayed great immaturity, but that immaturity was in no way predictable by her *biases*. There must be many others of her generation, working as pages, who believe heavily in socialism or other non-Conservative ideals who did not pull similar stunts. Should they be removed from their jobs based on their politics because their disagreement with the current government could potentially assert itself in the same stupid manner as this girl?
This girl knows it's a celebrity driven culture. She has a name now and likely, a new job very soon. This was not about politics, but about selfishness --- and there are many, many people with similarly strong opinions who would not put their own notoriety above their self-respect and the respect for the institutions they serve. That doesn't always show up on a resume or in the university papers one writes.
canadianna
My comment was less about her actions, than Dean's belief that she should never have been hired in the first place because of her *obvious biases*. Our exchange in the comment section is as follows:
June 4, 2011 at 12:18 PMHer ideas and her biases are no reason to have kept her from working as a page. It isn’t bizarre to assume that adults can have strong opinions and not act on them in such an embarrassing way. The failure is not with the hiring process, but with a woman who has no sense of duty and responsibility upon having been hired. In my reading of her history, her writing, performances and opinions might have been a little out there, but her prior actions gave no indication that she would be unable to fulfill the oath she swore.
-
BC Blue Says:
June 4, 2011 at 12:33 PMThat’s why resumes and background checks are kinda important dontcha think? Were either of these done and if they were, you’re saying that with her obvious biases, which should have made her automatically unsuitable for a non-partisan position, are acceptable to you? Please tell me you don’t do any hiring in real life.
-
canadianna Says:
June 5, 2011 at 6:20 AMAutomatically unsuitable? Are you telling me that people with biases should never be given a non-partisan job? That’s pretty narrow. People always have biases, and should behave themselves. Being passionate about her politics should not have prevented her from being a page. She should have *behaved* differently, not *thought* differently. There is nothing in her past behaviour that could have predicted that she would be so disrespectful of the position she took. And yes, I have hired people — some of whom disagreed with me. Life is full of divergent opinions but we have to judge people on their actions, not their biases.
-
June 5, 2011 at 7:41 AMThat’s right, if the person who hired her had done their job, she would have never been hired based on her activism and bias.
-
-
Adults can separate their job from their politics when need be. This person has displayed great immaturity, but that immaturity was in no way predictable by her *biases*. There must be many others of her generation, working as pages, who believe heavily in socialism or other non-Conservative ideals who did not pull similar stunts. Should they be removed from their jobs based on their politics because their disagreement with the current government could potentially assert itself in the same stupid manner as this girl?
This girl knows it's a celebrity driven culture. She has a name now and likely, a new job very soon. This was not about politics, but about selfishness --- and there are many, many people with similarly strong opinions who would not put their own notoriety above their self-respect and the respect for the institutions they serve. That doesn't always show up on a resume or in the university papers one writes.
canadianna
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Get to work, jackass
Toronto city councillor, John Filion, has quit the committee he was appointed to back in December -- having never attended one of its meetings.
Let me remind you Mr. Filion --- you have a JOB as a city councillor. With all jobs, there are obligations to the employer. You do have an employer. US. You serve us by sitting on whichever committee you're assigned to because if you don't --- you aren't EARNING the paycheque you're getting - FROM US. You do your job and THEN you get paid. That's called working for a living.
Unlike many of us, John, you have a healthy salary, plenty of perqs and a sizeable pension to look forward to, so . . . if you don't get to pick and choose which group you get to belong to, SUCKS FOR YOU -- but remember who you work for.
If I don't show up to work, I don't get paid. If I *quit* a portion of my job, my boss would make sure I wasn't allowed to do any of the rest of it . . . because I'd be fired.
You'd think politicians would pay more attention to current events and realize that although it's a couple of years away, we can always find someone just as annoying as you to fill your role on council (which is apparently to NOT sit on a committee because you're a suck). You are expendable Mr. Filion, just ask any Liberal.
Funny you say:
canadianna
Let me remind you Mr. Filion --- you have a JOB as a city councillor. With all jobs, there are obligations to the employer. You do have an employer. US. You serve us by sitting on whichever committee you're assigned to because if you don't --- you aren't EARNING the paycheque you're getting - FROM US. You do your job and THEN you get paid. That's called working for a living.
Unlike many of us, John, you have a healthy salary, plenty of perqs and a sizeable pension to look forward to, so . . . if you don't get to pick and choose which group you get to belong to, SUCKS FOR YOU -- but remember who you work for.
If I don't show up to work, I don't get paid. If I *quit* a portion of my job, my boss would make sure I wasn't allowed to do any of the rest of it . . . because I'd be fired.
You'd think politicians would pay more attention to current events and realize that although it's a couple of years away, we can always find someone just as annoying as you to fill your role on council (which is apparently to NOT sit on a committee because you're a suck). You are expendable Mr. Filion, just ask any Liberal.
Funny you say:
“I’ve never been too good at being a sheep.”You obviously don't mind being a jackass.
canadianna
Like something out of Mean Girls
... only a pair of Vice Principals are pulling the dirty trick.
*** Again, this is personal, not political*** This is an update for anyone who read about my daughter not being allowed to go to her class's prom.
Mia is normally complacent. She doesn't like confrontation and after my conversation with the female vice-principal, I thought she was ready to take *no* for an answer. Then she came to me on Tuesday night and said she was thinking about going to the school in the morning to talk with the VP who was in charge of the prom, the man who'd originally said no. She'd never actually had a conversation with him, she had been told by a secretary that he had said no. I thought it would be a good idea for her to have the conversation with the man in charge. So, yesterday she went.
Late in the day she called me at work, quietly excited. She told me, it wasn't for sure, but Mr. L had listened to everything she had to say and seemed to understand. He told her that because he didn't know her very well, he'd rather people who knew her better make the decision. He asked who her guidance councillor was and which VP she'd been assigned to. He told her to talk with them tomorrow (today) and if they said she could go, he would allow it.
Last night she was cautiously optimistic. We already knew that her guidance counsellor, Miss B. was okay with her going to prom, and her VP Ms D. had told me on the phone that her *no* was based on Mr. L's opinion. Given that Mr. L. seemed to have relented, it seemed fairly sure that Ms D. would have a similar change of heart.
Today Mia went to the school and waited in the guidance office for Miss B. who told her that Mr. L. wanted to see her. Miss B. told Mia she believed the answer must be yes.
Nope. Mr. L. had made an about face. His reason . . . prom is a celebration for the graduating class. You aren't graduating. It's an excuse. Anyone who knows anyone in high school over the past few years, knows that there are dozens of kids who take a fifth year and won't graduate with their year. They still go to prom.
You might say she shouldn't have bothered or that she's no worse off that she was Tuesday night when she was already *not allowed*. But it's worse now. Yesterday Mr. L. could have said: look, we've given you the reasons, no. Instead, he gave her hope and then pulled out the rug . . . that's cruel. That's what you might expect from immature people . . . like teenagers . . . not two, educated people who are supposed to understand how to deal effectively with teenagers and to help them to learn and grow into better people. Epic failure. Fortunately, my daughter is emotionally stable despite the depression she's been dealing with . . . they mightn't be so lucky the next time they pull a stunt like this on an emotionally fragile teen.
canadianna
*** Again, this is personal, not political*** This is an update for anyone who read about my daughter not being allowed to go to her class's prom.
Mia is normally complacent. She doesn't like confrontation and after my conversation with the female vice-principal, I thought she was ready to take *no* for an answer. Then she came to me on Tuesday night and said she was thinking about going to the school in the morning to talk with the VP who was in charge of the prom, the man who'd originally said no. She'd never actually had a conversation with him, she had been told by a secretary that he had said no. I thought it would be a good idea for her to have the conversation with the man in charge. So, yesterday she went.
Late in the day she called me at work, quietly excited. She told me, it wasn't for sure, but Mr. L had listened to everything she had to say and seemed to understand. He told her that because he didn't know her very well, he'd rather people who knew her better make the decision. He asked who her guidance councillor was and which VP she'd been assigned to. He told her to talk with them tomorrow (today) and if they said she could go, he would allow it.
Last night she was cautiously optimistic. We already knew that her guidance counsellor, Miss B. was okay with her going to prom, and her VP Ms D. had told me on the phone that her *no* was based on Mr. L's opinion. Given that Mr. L. seemed to have relented, it seemed fairly sure that Ms D. would have a similar change of heart.
Today Mia went to the school and waited in the guidance office for Miss B. who told her that Mr. L. wanted to see her. Miss B. told Mia she believed the answer must be yes.
Nope. Mr. L. had made an about face. His reason . . . prom is a celebration for the graduating class. You aren't graduating. It's an excuse. Anyone who knows anyone in high school over the past few years, knows that there are dozens of kids who take a fifth year and won't graduate with their year. They still go to prom.
You might say she shouldn't have bothered or that she's no worse off that she was Tuesday night when she was already *not allowed*. But it's worse now. Yesterday Mr. L. could have said: look, we've given you the reasons, no. Instead, he gave her hope and then pulled out the rug . . . that's cruel. That's what you might expect from immature people . . . like teenagers . . . not two, educated people who are supposed to understand how to deal effectively with teenagers and to help them to learn and grow into better people. Epic failure. Fortunately, my daughter is emotionally stable despite the depression she's been dealing with . . . they mightn't be so lucky the next time they pull a stunt like this on an emotionally fragile teen.
canadianna
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Ugly TO
If you're in Toronto, or the GTA, where abouts?
Are you finding what I find, that the weeds everywhere are just obnoxiously horrible?
I know, I know . . . the environment. While I'm all for not killing ourselves with chemicals, I wonder if there isn't some way to rid ourselves of the weeds for both aesthetics and for the health benefits of those of us who suffer from allergies.
Seasonal allergies are always going to be a part of life, but since the ban on chemical controls, those of us who suffer, suffer much more. Imagine having a perpetual cold/flu. Dripping nose, itchy eyes, sore throat . . . and it just never goes away. Sure, you can take allergy medication --- EVERY DAY. More expensive than gas and the non-drowsy never works as well and if you take the other stuff, might just as well stay in bed. The whole point of letting the weeds run amok is to avoid putting chemicals into our bodies, I guess it's just some of us can't avoid it if we can afford it.
It's funny, fields of dandelions are lovely, but boulevards and lawns, cemeteries and plaza grass patches, highway dividers and seams of land that are vacant . . . they just look scruffy.
No, I'm not advocating a full-scale return to chemical weed elimination . . . but, hey, is your part of TO looking really shabby too?
Just wondering.
Are you finding what I find, that the weeds everywhere are just obnoxiously horrible?
I know, I know . . . the environment. While I'm all for not killing ourselves with chemicals, I wonder if there isn't some way to rid ourselves of the weeds for both aesthetics and for the health benefits of those of us who suffer from allergies.
Seasonal allergies are always going to be a part of life, but since the ban on chemical controls, those of us who suffer, suffer much more. Imagine having a perpetual cold/flu. Dripping nose, itchy eyes, sore throat . . . and it just never goes away. Sure, you can take allergy medication --- EVERY DAY. More expensive than gas and the non-drowsy never works as well and if you take the other stuff, might just as well stay in bed. The whole point of letting the weeds run amok is to avoid putting chemicals into our bodies, I guess it's just some of us can't avoid it if we can afford it.
It's funny, fields of dandelions are lovely, but boulevards and lawns, cemeteries and plaza grass patches, highway dividers and seams of land that are vacant . . . they just look scruffy.
No, I'm not advocating a full-scale return to chemical weed elimination . . . but, hey, is your part of TO looking really shabby too?
Just wondering.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Can anyone tell me . . .
. . . did any of Justin Bieber, Jim Carrey, Anne Murray, Shania Twain, Lucy Maud Montgomery, Michael J. Fox, Robert Bateman, Paul Brandt, Sarah Chalke, Emily Carr, Lorne Michaels, Norman Jewison, Chantal Kreviazuk or Stompin' Tom Connors . . . receive any arts funding? Just wondering.
I believe that it's a good idea to encourage new artists, but hey . . . let's face it . . . Canada is a small market. No matter how good, how popular, how talented any artist is, the money is south of the border and only a few will stay ... and not because they aren't receiving financial support from the government.
And truly, no government gives grants to just anyone ... you have to be published, have credits, credentials. It isn't enough to make pretty pictures, you have to prove that you have a market . . . that someone has actually bought into your talent. Emerging artists should be encouraged, but realistically, there is no credible or fair way for the government to dole out money just because someone perceives themselves to be an artist . . . so it doesn't.
If talent is our #1 export as Charlie Angus says, it isn't because Justin Bieber didn't get an arts grant. Nothing the government can do is going to stop our best and brightest artists from seeking fame and fortune across the border or around the globe when that's where the real money is.
From the above link:
canadianna
I believe that it's a good idea to encourage new artists, but hey . . . let's face it . . . Canada is a small market. No matter how good, how popular, how talented any artist is, the money is south of the border and only a few will stay ... and not because they aren't receiving financial support from the government.
And truly, no government gives grants to just anyone ... you have to be published, have credits, credentials. It isn't enough to make pretty pictures, you have to prove that you have a market . . . that someone has actually bought into your talent. Emerging artists should be encouraged, but realistically, there is no credible or fair way for the government to dole out money just because someone perceives themselves to be an artist . . . so it doesn't.
If talent is our #1 export as Charlie Angus says, it isn't because Justin Bieber didn't get an arts grant. Nothing the government can do is going to stop our best and brightest artists from seeking fame and fortune across the border or around the globe when that's where the real money is.
From the above link:
Short on specific numbers, the four MPs talked instead about the need for income averaging to help starving artists, whose average income is $13,000 a year – well below the poverty line.Income averaging? I support my family by working a crappy job, for a crappy wage, but still pay my share of taxes . . . and the NDP thinks some of my tax dollars should go to *top up* the income of someone who fancies themselves an artist? Thanks NDP. I suppose a case can be made for a government bureaucrat to hand you cash to support you as you struggle with your craft, but realistically, the market decides if it will support you while you create. It's a drag, but if you can't draw the crowds, the fans, the readers, the buyers, then maybe you should get a day job.
canadianna
Monday, May 16, 2011
Teaching moments
*** This is not a political post. It's about a personal matter. Just so you know. **
Personal responsibility is an important issue to me. Cause and effect ... everything you do has consequences.
My 17 year old daughter won't be going to her prom in two weeks. It's a decision made by her school administration this week. They say that she is the author of her own misfortune and that she has to pay for the errors of her ways. I say she is a kid, learning her way in this world and their withholding this privilege is more about control than correction. I believe there was a teaching moment available, but that maybe, if they cared to think about it, the administration should be taking a lesson from my daughter, rather than the other way around.
You be the judge:
During grades 9 & 10 Mia (not her real name) was a typical highschooler. She was average B+ student, had a lot of friends, did her homework regularly, went to class regularly and generally, had a positive attitude.
Things started to change near the end of Grade 10. She had an uncharacteristic clash with a teacher. She ended up not turning in a key assignment, and despite having had 80s in that course in the first two terms, she failed the class by a couple of marks. I had some health issues and was unable to advocate for her. She was devastated. Other circumstances exacerbated things. My health got worse for a nearly a year before it got better and money became tight because I had to be off work. It caused stress for all of my kids.
At the beginning of Grade 11, Mia wanted to change schools because things didn't feel right. She wasn't happy, but she didn't know why. She didn't see it, but I knew the signs. Depression. She had started to withdraw from her friends, deactivating Facebook, appearing offline on MSN to all but a few people. We talked about it, but although she was sad, she didn't see it as a big deal. She started skipping school, not individual classes, but missing whole days just staying at home.
Over the next few months, my dad, who lived with us throughout her whole lifetime, died. He had been like a father to her. Shortly after, Mia left school altogether and tried one of those alternative schools so she wouldn't be losing credits. The kids were all *troubled*. Drugs, alcohol, etc. She didn't fit in that kind of environment but she managed to get a credit there and then moved to a semester school out of the area. She couldn't get out of bed in the morning. She tried for a little while, and got good grades on the assignments she did, but she missed a lot. When it became apparent that she wouldn't get the credits, she stopped going altogether.
She spent the summer mostly alone or with my other kids and my mother. I'd gone back to work, but I knew she spent most of her days in bed. She refused to go to a doctor or admit that there was anything wrong. She just thought she was down because she'd messed up her previous school year. She tried focusing on getting into another school, but because of her Grade 11 year, no other school would take her.
Last September, on the second day of school, she called her old high school and spoke with a Vice Principal who told her that she could go back, and to call Guidance the next day to make an appointment. When she called the next day, the Guidance secretary told her that no, she could NOT come back, that she had officially changed high schools the previous year and that this was no longer her home school.
Mia was devastated and she held onto that conversation for a few days before she told me. In the meantime, she missed the first week and a half of school. When things were finally straightened out and it was determined she COULD go back, it took well over a week to work out a schedule, and then, the administration refused to allow her to take Grade 12 courses, even when no Grade 11 prerequisite was required. I called. I went in. I tried to explain how emotionally fragile she was without Oprahfying things. Mia hates drawing attention to herself and she only shares her feelings with a select few.
They made a couple of accommodations, but very late. She'd already missed several classes because of their delays in changing her schedule. She still had trouble getting out of bed. She had trouble catching up on the work she'd missed those first few weeks and some of the teachers were downright snarky and would embarrass her in class. She started missing again, sleeping all day. She scarcely talked with anyone outside the house. The school knows this. By December, she'd pretty much determined she'd blown the year again. She knew she should care but she felt hopeless.
In February, something changed. She started smiling again. It was such a change, that you couldn't help but notice. I'd almost forgotten that smile. She bought a ticket for her school's semi-formal, and actually went. She started talking to more people and she started showing up at school -- not to go to class --that was futile, but during lunch or spares she'd see kids she'd kept in touch with while she'd been at home, and when no one had free time, she'd just go to the library and read. It got her out of the house. Sometimes the adult hall monitors would send her home, but she was still registered at the school, so she wasn't trespassing. Sometimes, they'd tell her to go to class, but she knew that would just frustrate teachers who knew she wasn't actually there for their class. Every once in a while the school would send home attendance reports, but we'd talked and they knew her situation.
In April, she reactivated Facebook. Many of the kids in her grade didn't even realize that she wasn't actually attending class, they just thought they didn't have any in common. The adult hall monitors began harassing her every time she went to the school, despite the fact that none of her friends ever skipped class to be with her and she never went anywhere besides the library, the cafeteria or the guidance office. She continued to go, but less often and when she saw them, she'd just leave before they could tell her to.
Prom tickets went on sale in early May. She bought her ticket and then came home and asked what I thought about her inviting her friend Emily as her guest. Emily used to go to the high school too, but she got pregnant and had a baby in January. Mia knew what it felt like to be on the outside and she wanted to give Emily the same brief night of normal that she was going to have. I thought it was a great idea. Ironically, her desire to give someone else a prom is what led to Mia being denied the privilege.
Turns out, guests have to be approved. Mia had her ticket, but she had to fill out a form for the administration to check out non-students before they were allowed to buy a ticket. It was really just a formality. Mia handed in the form and was told she could pick it up and buy the extra ticket in a couple of days, but when she went back to get it, a school secretary told her that she couldn't have a guest because she couldn't go to prom. Mia explained that she'd already bought her own ticket. The secretary said that since Mia didn't go to class, she couldn't go to prom. This conversation happened in front of a crowded office. Mia left the office, uncertain as to whether the woman was correct but angry that her personal circumstances were being voiced loudly in public. Anyway, turns out, the secretary was right. By asking a guest, Mia had drawn attention to herself and the VP in charge of the prom decided to disallow her participation because of her absences.
I called the school, left a message for the VP, but he never called me back. I was advised to try a different VP, which I was loath to do because I didn't want to seem sneaky like I was trying to skip him and get Mia in without him noticing. Finally, I gave up and tried the other VP. At the beginning of the school year when scheduling was the issue, she had helped. Not this time. She blasted me. Her attitude was hard and cold. She resented that I asked that she have compassion for a girl who was painfully aware of the difficult path she had ahead of her. She said she'd exhausted her compassion and that she'd been more than accomodating.
This is prom, not a trip to the museum. There won't be another one. Once it's over, that's it. The VP suggested that this would *teach her a lesson*. I asked, what lesson exactly, given that the girl wasn't truant, but depressed . . . apparently, without a doctor's note, that's impossible. Mia will learn that there are consequences.
Hmmm . . . she's 17 with a grade 10 education. She's no dummy. I think she knows. There will be many years of facing consequences. All Mia was asking for is one night of normal.
Anyway, when I got home from work and shared my conversation with her, Mia shrugged and thanked me for trying. Later, I was still stewing about it and I messaged her on MSN. I asked her if she thought she had learned anything.
She said:
canadianna
Personal responsibility is an important issue to me. Cause and effect ... everything you do has consequences.
My 17 year old daughter won't be going to her prom in two weeks. It's a decision made by her school administration this week. They say that she is the author of her own misfortune and that she has to pay for the errors of her ways. I say she is a kid, learning her way in this world and their withholding this privilege is more about control than correction. I believe there was a teaching moment available, but that maybe, if they cared to think about it, the administration should be taking a lesson from my daughter, rather than the other way around.
You be the judge:
During grades 9 & 10 Mia (not her real name) was a typical highschooler. She was average B+ student, had a lot of friends, did her homework regularly, went to class regularly and generally, had a positive attitude.
Things started to change near the end of Grade 10. She had an uncharacteristic clash with a teacher. She ended up not turning in a key assignment, and despite having had 80s in that course in the first two terms, she failed the class by a couple of marks. I had some health issues and was unable to advocate for her. She was devastated. Other circumstances exacerbated things. My health got worse for a nearly a year before it got better and money became tight because I had to be off work. It caused stress for all of my kids.
At the beginning of Grade 11, Mia wanted to change schools because things didn't feel right. She wasn't happy, but she didn't know why. She didn't see it, but I knew the signs. Depression. She had started to withdraw from her friends, deactivating Facebook, appearing offline on MSN to all but a few people. We talked about it, but although she was sad, she didn't see it as a big deal. She started skipping school, not individual classes, but missing whole days just staying at home.
Over the next few months, my dad, who lived with us throughout her whole lifetime, died. He had been like a father to her. Shortly after, Mia left school altogether and tried one of those alternative schools so she wouldn't be losing credits. The kids were all *troubled*. Drugs, alcohol, etc. She didn't fit in that kind of environment but she managed to get a credit there and then moved to a semester school out of the area. She couldn't get out of bed in the morning. She tried for a little while, and got good grades on the assignments she did, but she missed a lot. When it became apparent that she wouldn't get the credits, she stopped going altogether.
She spent the summer mostly alone or with my other kids and my mother. I'd gone back to work, but I knew she spent most of her days in bed. She refused to go to a doctor or admit that there was anything wrong. She just thought she was down because she'd messed up her previous school year. She tried focusing on getting into another school, but because of her Grade 11 year, no other school would take her.
Last September, on the second day of school, she called her old high school and spoke with a Vice Principal who told her that she could go back, and to call Guidance the next day to make an appointment. When she called the next day, the Guidance secretary told her that no, she could NOT come back, that she had officially changed high schools the previous year and that this was no longer her home school.
Mia was devastated and she held onto that conversation for a few days before she told me. In the meantime, she missed the first week and a half of school. When things were finally straightened out and it was determined she COULD go back, it took well over a week to work out a schedule, and then, the administration refused to allow her to take Grade 12 courses, even when no Grade 11 prerequisite was required. I called. I went in. I tried to explain how emotionally fragile she was without Oprahfying things. Mia hates drawing attention to herself and she only shares her feelings with a select few.
They made a couple of accommodations, but very late. She'd already missed several classes because of their delays in changing her schedule. She still had trouble getting out of bed. She had trouble catching up on the work she'd missed those first few weeks and some of the teachers were downright snarky and would embarrass her in class. She started missing again, sleeping all day. She scarcely talked with anyone outside the house. The school knows this. By December, she'd pretty much determined she'd blown the year again. She knew she should care but she felt hopeless.
In February, something changed. She started smiling again. It was such a change, that you couldn't help but notice. I'd almost forgotten that smile. She bought a ticket for her school's semi-formal, and actually went. She started talking to more people and she started showing up at school -- not to go to class --that was futile, but during lunch or spares she'd see kids she'd kept in touch with while she'd been at home, and when no one had free time, she'd just go to the library and read. It got her out of the house. Sometimes the adult hall monitors would send her home, but she was still registered at the school, so she wasn't trespassing. Sometimes, they'd tell her to go to class, but she knew that would just frustrate teachers who knew she wasn't actually there for their class. Every once in a while the school would send home attendance reports, but we'd talked and they knew her situation.
In April, she reactivated Facebook. Many of the kids in her grade didn't even realize that she wasn't actually attending class, they just thought they didn't have any in common. The adult hall monitors began harassing her every time she went to the school, despite the fact that none of her friends ever skipped class to be with her and she never went anywhere besides the library, the cafeteria or the guidance office. She continued to go, but less often and when she saw them, she'd just leave before they could tell her to.
Prom tickets went on sale in early May. She bought her ticket and then came home and asked what I thought about her inviting her friend Emily as her guest. Emily used to go to the high school too, but she got pregnant and had a baby in January. Mia knew what it felt like to be on the outside and she wanted to give Emily the same brief night of normal that she was going to have. I thought it was a great idea. Ironically, her desire to give someone else a prom is what led to Mia being denied the privilege.
Turns out, guests have to be approved. Mia had her ticket, but she had to fill out a form for the administration to check out non-students before they were allowed to buy a ticket. It was really just a formality. Mia handed in the form and was told she could pick it up and buy the extra ticket in a couple of days, but when she went back to get it, a school secretary told her that she couldn't have a guest because she couldn't go to prom. Mia explained that she'd already bought her own ticket. The secretary said that since Mia didn't go to class, she couldn't go to prom. This conversation happened in front of a crowded office. Mia left the office, uncertain as to whether the woman was correct but angry that her personal circumstances were being voiced loudly in public. Anyway, turns out, the secretary was right. By asking a guest, Mia had drawn attention to herself and the VP in charge of the prom decided to disallow her participation because of her absences.
I called the school, left a message for the VP, but he never called me back. I was advised to try a different VP, which I was loath to do because I didn't want to seem sneaky like I was trying to skip him and get Mia in without him noticing. Finally, I gave up and tried the other VP. At the beginning of the school year when scheduling was the issue, she had helped. Not this time. She blasted me. Her attitude was hard and cold. She resented that I asked that she have compassion for a girl who was painfully aware of the difficult path she had ahead of her. She said she'd exhausted her compassion and that she'd been more than accomodating.
This is prom, not a trip to the museum. There won't be another one. Once it's over, that's it. The VP suggested that this would *teach her a lesson*. I asked, what lesson exactly, given that the girl wasn't truant, but depressed . . . apparently, without a doctor's note, that's impossible. Mia will learn that there are consequences.
Hmmm . . . she's 17 with a grade 10 education. She's no dummy. I think she knows. There will be many years of facing consequences. All Mia was asking for is one night of normal.
Anyway, when I got home from work and shared my conversation with her, Mia shrugged and thanked me for trying. Later, I was still stewing about it and I messaged her on MSN. I asked her if she thought she had learned anything.
She said:
"Jokes on me. They can’t teach me that there are consequences for my actions if i already knew that. Instead they’ve taught me that i'm still a kid. i was naive enough to believe that people do things for reasons other than to help themselves. i really thought someone would help, for the simple reason they are able to."I asked her if she was okay, and she said:
"i talked to Cate and asked if she would make emily HER guest. She did, so at least emily still gets to go. i was so worried she wouldn't get to. lol."I asked her if it bothered her. Her answer taught me something:
Compassion. Empathy. Sharing. Altruism. Friendship. Selflessness. She didn't learn those things at school.Whenever bad things like this happen to me. I figure that at least it happened to me, because I know I can deal with these sorts of things. Other people might not be able to.no it's okay. i don't really mind.she needed it more.i'm at least happy emily gets to go.
i'd do it the same way again.
canadianna
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Give the girl a break
Ruth Ellen Brosseau admits she put her name forward so the NDP could field a candidate in a riding where they hadn't one. While I believe the NDP should be taken to task for allowing someone to *fill a slot* as it were, Brosseau herself should be cut some slack.
Voters don't always look at the literature. We don't read the pamphlets that are dropped in our mailboxes. We don't open our doors to people with clipboards. We don't bother to investigate our local candidate on the Internet. We trust the party has vetted people . . . gone through a nomination process and that a local riding association has nominated and/or voted for this person to fill the spot on the ballot -- obviously that was not the case here -- and apparently a lot of ridings in Quebec. But that's on the party. The candidates, even Brosseau, did what they thought was the right thing.
There's enough pressure on the new MPs without this kind of media scrutiny. I know it's slow news on the Hill, but the media is focusing on the wrong story -- not where was she, but why? Quebec voters trusted the NDP to field qualified, dedicated candidates and Brosseau may well prove to be both of those things --- but the NDP didn't know that either way. They just needed a name to fill the spot on the ballot. That's the news. Start questioning the process that allows someone to put their name forward because they aren't expected to win and no one else can be bothered.
The new MPs from all parties have a lot to digest. Putting so much heat on this one seems a tad unfair. Yes, I can read and I know her circumstances -- not much French, never been in the riding, away during the election. None of that means as much to me as will she do her job diligently and take it seriously -- and I don't plan on basing that opinion on how she handled an election in which she obviously didn't take her chances of winning seriously.
Press Jack for answers about all of his novice MPs, but leave Brosseau to adjust to her new life. Seriously.
canadianna
Voters don't always look at the literature. We don't read the pamphlets that are dropped in our mailboxes. We don't open our doors to people with clipboards. We don't bother to investigate our local candidate on the Internet. We trust the party has vetted people . . . gone through a nomination process and that a local riding association has nominated and/or voted for this person to fill the spot on the ballot -- obviously that was not the case here -- and apparently a lot of ridings in Quebec. But that's on the party. The candidates, even Brosseau, did what they thought was the right thing.
There's enough pressure on the new MPs without this kind of media scrutiny. I know it's slow news on the Hill, but the media is focusing on the wrong story -- not where was she, but why? Quebec voters trusted the NDP to field qualified, dedicated candidates and Brosseau may well prove to be both of those things --- but the NDP didn't know that either way. They just needed a name to fill the spot on the ballot. That's the news. Start questioning the process that allows someone to put their name forward because they aren't expected to win and no one else can be bothered.
The new MPs from all parties have a lot to digest. Putting so much heat on this one seems a tad unfair. Yes, I can read and I know her circumstances -- not much French, never been in the riding, away during the election. None of that means as much to me as will she do her job diligently and take it seriously -- and I don't plan on basing that opinion on how she handled an election in which she obviously didn't take her chances of winning seriously.
Press Jack for answers about all of his novice MPs, but leave Brosseau to adjust to her new life. Seriously.
canadianna
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
The most interesting thing to come out of this election?
You no longer need Quebec for a majority.
Makes you wonder, now that Quebec has chosen the federalist, socialist option, instead of the separatist one, do the rest of us still wag?
Don't get me wrong. I believe Quebec is a distinct society -- that's one of those truths that is self-evident. Its present colour compared to the rest of the nation is enough to prove its more European flavour. That said, I don't believe its language laws should be extended federally -- nor do I believe its distinct language should be imposed on people who chose a life in public service. I believe that's what interpreters are for.
Anyway . . . my point started out being . . . hey, you don't need Quebec to achieve a majority anymore. Cool.
canadianna
Makes you wonder, now that Quebec has chosen the federalist, socialist option, instead of the separatist one, do the rest of us still wag?
Don't get me wrong. I believe Quebec is a distinct society -- that's one of those truths that is self-evident. Its present colour compared to the rest of the nation is enough to prove its more European flavour. That said, I don't believe its language laws should be extended federally -- nor do I believe its distinct language should be imposed on people who chose a life in public service. I believe that's what interpreters are for.
Anyway . . . my point started out being . . . hey, you don't need Quebec to achieve a majority anymore. Cool.
canadianna
Ignatieff: Allow me to slag them . . .
. . . whilst I make my graceful exit.
No sour grapes for our humble prophet Michael Ignatieff. Naw, he's a loser, but not a sore loser:
But, not one to make a fuss, Michael said:
Michael, I think you stubbed your toe on the way out.
canadianna
No sour grapes for our humble prophet Michael Ignatieff. Naw, he's a loser, but not a sore loser:
“This is a Prime Minister found in contempt of Parliament. This was a Prime Minister where the accumulations of what we believed to be abuses of power led to a point at which it seemed to me absolutely my responsibility as the leader of the opposition to stand up for the sovereignty of Parliament,” he said (when asked if he miscalculated by forcing an election.)Ignatieff went on to say that the *just visiting* ads were:
“absolutely unscrupulous campaign of personal attack.” and “I had a very large square put around my neck for a number of years.”Sniffle.
But, not one to make a fuss, Michael said:
"The only thing Canadians like less than a loser is a sore loser” and he is “leaving politics with “(his) head held high.”No, Mike what we like less than a sore loser, is a sore loser who takes his parting shots but pretends his still travelling the high road. Today, and throughout the campaign, you accused Harper of contempt for Canadians, abuse of power, corruption, lies, secrets plans to . . . (fill in the blank with any number of scary scenarios) But you have my sympathy because you've endured being called a political tourist. That must've been painful. Why do you suppose that is. My guess? Truth hurts.
Michael, I think you stubbed your toe on the way out.
canadianna
Monday, May 02, 2011
Finally -- Stephen Harper's REAL agenda
Paranoid anyone?
Ignatieff thinks Stephen Harper's raison d'être is to *drive a stake through the heart of the Liberal Party*
He went on to say:
Silly Iggy. You wrecked it all by yourself..
Whatever the outcome, at least half the results will be the product of voter-fatigue. I'm sure tired of whiny Liberals.
canadianna
Ignatieff thinks Stephen Harper's raison d'être is to *drive a stake through the heart of the Liberal Party*
Ignatieff told supporters “Mr. Harper has no vision for Canada, but he has a very sharp vision for the Conservative party of Canada, which is to try to drive a stake through the heart of the Liberal Party.”Does that mean all those people who called him *Count Iggy* were right?
He went on to say:
"Their politics are a sustained attempt to destroy me and destroy the party,'' Ignatieff said at a final fiery news conference on Sunday.Whoa! And I thought Stephen Harper was merely a power hungry despot demanding more time in power and bent on the destruction of the country . . .Wow . . . He really lowered his sights by aiming at the Liberal Party.
Silly Iggy. You wrecked it all by yourself..
Whatever the outcome, at least half the results will be the product of voter-fatigue. I'm sure tired of whiny Liberals.
canadianna
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Why is Jack a HOAG?
Jack, he's the mack? So says Warren Kinsella, who has all the answers--- yet again. He knows why all you average guys and gals are in a Layton-lovefest. Turns out, Layton's a cool guy -- in Warren-speak a *HOAG* (helluvaguy) --the kind you'd swig beers with at a tailgate -- because of course, that's what we *average* Canadians are all about.
Funny, I don't see it. Jack is personable enough, but if you ask me, he's the kind of guy who'd have been a geek in high school, not someone you'd want to hang out with if you were cool. Not that geek is a bad thing in my mind. I wasn't cool and I did hang out with the geeks -- but let's not pretend he's a major hockey nut or that you'd find him right down there getting into the UFC stuff that's going on now. Jack Layton is anything but the average Joe. What he is, is an elite who passes. And the only reason he passes is because he is so well versed in the game.
Kinsella attacks Harper again as the angry man. Did any of you see that in this campaign? Seriously -- partisanship aside. Harper seemed innocuous to me. Bland, calm and as Kinsella said, uninspiring -- but hardly "an angry guy who doesn’t like the country, let alone the people who live in it." .... where'd that come from besides Kinsella's obvious bias?
I remember the Harper they called angry. Weren't you angry at the Sponsorship scandal and the Liberal sense of entitlement? Wouldn't you be more angry if the media then focused on your anger than the obvious waste, mismanagement and possible corruption within the sitting government. And then to be consistently accused of the *hidden agenda* fiction .... Defending against lies and innuendo makes most people come off as angry. As for *disliking the country (and) the people who live in it* --Harper has endured so many vicious character assaults from the media he must love his country and want to serve its people if he's able to suck it up and take it the way he has, because unlike Jack, Harper wasn't born to this.
The truth is, that Layton is a huckster-extraordinaire . . . the carnival barker . . . the lifelong politician who knows how to shill and Harper is that *regular guy* -- the guy who gets frustrated with the stupidity of people who will ask the same question three times in order to get the answer they prefer. Aren't you that kind of guy? Aren't you the kind of guy who shakes your head at the dramedy of politics? Wouldn't you find it hard to play that popularity contest game?
Anyway, what gets me is these puffed up Liberals who see us as a nation of donut eaters and beer swillers who'd use the same reasoning to chose our government, as we would to choose our drinking buddies. Way to under estimate your fellow citizens, Warren. Who was it that dislikes the people of this country?
Warren? He's gettin' borin'.
canadianna
Funny, I don't see it. Jack is personable enough, but if you ask me, he's the kind of guy who'd have been a geek in high school, not someone you'd want to hang out with if you were cool. Not that geek is a bad thing in my mind. I wasn't cool and I did hang out with the geeks -- but let's not pretend he's a major hockey nut or that you'd find him right down there getting into the UFC stuff that's going on now. Jack Layton is anything but the average Joe. What he is, is an elite who passes. And the only reason he passes is because he is so well versed in the game.
Kinsella attacks Harper again as the angry man. Did any of you see that in this campaign? Seriously -- partisanship aside. Harper seemed innocuous to me. Bland, calm and as Kinsella said, uninspiring -- but hardly "an angry guy who doesn’t like the country, let alone the people who live in it." .... where'd that come from besides Kinsella's obvious bias?
I remember the Harper they called angry. Weren't you angry at the Sponsorship scandal and the Liberal sense of entitlement? Wouldn't you be more angry if the media then focused on your anger than the obvious waste, mismanagement and possible corruption within the sitting government. And then to be consistently accused of the *hidden agenda* fiction .... Defending against lies and innuendo makes most people come off as angry. As for *disliking the country (and) the people who live in it* --Harper has endured so many vicious character assaults from the media he must love his country and want to serve its people if he's able to suck it up and take it the way he has, because unlike Jack, Harper wasn't born to this.
The truth is, that Layton is a huckster-extraordinaire . . . the carnival barker . . . the lifelong politician who knows how to shill and Harper is that *regular guy* -- the guy who gets frustrated with the stupidity of people who will ask the same question three times in order to get the answer they prefer. Aren't you that kind of guy? Aren't you the kind of guy who shakes your head at the dramedy of politics? Wouldn't you find it hard to play that popularity contest game?
Anyway, what gets me is these puffed up Liberals who see us as a nation of donut eaters and beer swillers who'd use the same reasoning to chose our government, as we would to choose our drinking buddies. Way to under estimate your fellow citizens, Warren. Who was it that dislikes the people of this country?
Warren? He's gettin' borin'.
canadianna
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Another Tory endorsement
This time, from the Toronto Star.
When The Star turns orange, there could be no better sign that the Conservatives are the best party to govern. The formerly scarlet paper has twisted crowbars into pretzels to sell the idea that smiling Jack deserves your vote.
This is not a shock, but the truth is, I'm kinda disappointed. I thought that despite the crash and burn of the Liberal party, its very own little rag would be able to find a way to stay red. I figured maybe they'd pull the Time Man of the Year cop out ... you remember the year when the winner was *you* ... I thought the Star'd set out a little blurb about the evils of each party, focussing tightly on Harper whilst treading ever so lightly on Ignatieff and then say something like . . . so hold your nose and vote . . . but only you can decide which party's policies/behaviour horrify you least.
But no. They took the high road. At least, I figure they must be high . . . how else can they justify this radical piece of advice that would lurch the nation so far to the left it would become a socialist wasteland.
Okay. That's hyperbole, but come on, if The Star can keep a straight face and endorse Layton, don't expect me to keep a straight face. What a joke The Star is. And what a HUGE waste of paper. Literally.
canadianna
When The Star turns orange, there could be no better sign that the Conservatives are the best party to govern. The formerly scarlet paper has twisted crowbars into pretzels to sell the idea that smiling Jack deserves your vote.
This is not a shock, but the truth is, I'm kinda disappointed. I thought that despite the crash and burn of the Liberal party, its very own little rag would be able to find a way to stay red. I figured maybe they'd pull the Time Man of the Year cop out ... you remember the year when the winner was *you* ... I thought the Star'd set out a little blurb about the evils of each party, focussing tightly on Harper whilst treading ever so lightly on Ignatieff and then say something like . . . so hold your nose and vote . . . but only you can decide which party's policies/behaviour horrify you least.
But no. They took the high road. At least, I figure they must be high . . . how else can they justify this radical piece of advice that would lurch the nation so far to the left it would become a socialist wasteland.
Okay. That's hyperbole, but come on, if The Star can keep a straight face and endorse Layton, don't expect me to keep a straight face. What a joke The Star is. And what a HUGE waste of paper. Literally.
canadianna
Sunday, April 24, 2011
All things being equal -- booo
Did you hear Ignatieff today going on about equality?
I just hate it when the privileged classes start waxing on about equality.
Please, don't pretend that you're one of *us*. That's what makes people cynical. Ivy league, silver spoon, caviar eating elites.
Run around all the campaign events you want. Do a country-wide tour. No matter where you are it's not real. You don't even know who we are, don't keep pretending you have any idea what we want.
If you knew anything about us, you'd know that the people in Mississauga didn't boo because they'd had a couple of beers like you said, they booed because they knew that's what you'd think about them.
Canadianna
I just hate it when the privileged classes start waxing on about equality.
Please, don't pretend that you're one of *us*. That's what makes people cynical. Ivy league, silver spoon, caviar eating elites.
Run around all the campaign events you want. Do a country-wide tour. No matter where you are it's not real. You don't even know who we are, don't keep pretending you have any idea what we want.
If you knew anything about us, you'd know that the people in Mississauga didn't boo because they'd had a couple of beers like you said, they booed because they knew that's what you'd think about them.
Canadianna
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)